DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

CHAPTER 8

Natural and Cultural Resources

Introduction

Natural and cultural resources such as the Fox River, Bay of Green Bay, Niagara Escarpment, and the lengthy history of human settlement, all contribute to Brown County’s sense of place and unique identity within the State of Wisconsin. Brown County has recognized the importance of planning for natural resources, as evidenced by the Brown County Shoreland Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Area Best Practices Report, open space and outdoor recreation plans, Brown County Sewage Plan, and comprehensive plans. This chapter of the Brown County Comprehensive Plan places an emphasis on integrating those plans’ recommendations with other county and local planning efforts.

A comprehensive approach to natural and cultural resources planning will reflect the strong influence these features have on quality of life issues and the character of the community. Reasonable and timely protection of natural and cultural resources helps sustain many important functions of a community and can help protect a community’s history and identity. In an urbanizing county like Brown County with its mix of urban, suburban, rural, and agricultural lands, sensible protection of natural and cultural resources can help ensure a healthy, safe, and attractive community.

Beyond the quality of life benefits, it is important to understand the vital functions and benefits that the protection of natural resources provides. Wetlands, for example, perform a vital function in preserving the quality of groundwater, as well as surface water. Floodways and floodplains serve to naturally attenuate high surface water conditions. Development adjacent to natural resource areas should be done in a well- planned fashion to preserve the natural functions of these resource areas. Such development can be enhanced by melding development features with natural features. The following goals and objectives will serve as the framework for the chapter and the resultant recommendations.

Goal and Objectives

Goal

Balance the use and preservation of Brown County’s cultural and natural resources in a sustainable manner in order to enhance the unique character and special quality of life found within the County.

Objectives

 Reduce the level of phosphorus that is entering Brown County’s surface waters and contributing to excess algae growth in the Fox River and Bay of Green Bay.

 Manage nonpoint stormwater to reduce suspended solids entering Brown County’s surface waters, consistent with the recommendations in the Lower Fox Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report.

 Develop and maintain infrastructure that helps Brown County residents and visitors enjoy our natural resources.

 Encourage the protection of ecologically sensitive areas such as shorelands, wetlands, streams, floodlands, forests, and unique geological features, including karst features, shallow or exposed bedrock, and the Niagara Escarpment.

 Support efforts to protect threatened and endangered species.

 Work with private property owners, non-profits, government agencies, and other interested parties to

1 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

restore degraded wetlands, floodlands, and streams as critical wildlife and fish habitat.

 Promote public appreciation of our cultural, historic, and archaeological sites through interpretive programs and facilities.

 Continue efforts to restore the Cat Island Chain of Islands.

 Promote the County’s cultural facilities such as the Neville Public Museum, Barkhausen Waterfowl Preserve, NEW Zoo/Reforestation Camp, and Library system, which support the area’s quality of life.

 Support educational efforts that encourage Brown County residents to learn about and care for the County’s natural and cultural resources.

Background

An understanding of the important features of a community and of the changes those features have undergone is an essential ingredient of any planning endeavor. The natural and cultural features of Brown County have long been an important part of the County. An understanding of the past and present status of natural and cultural resources will enable trends to be identified. This will, in turn, help identify future trends regarding such resources and related subjects as recreation, land use, and stormwater management.

History, Natural Resources

Natural resources have long played an important role in the history and development of the County. These resources, most important being the Bay of Green Bay and the Fox River, have long been an attraction to the people of Brown County. Native Americans were most likely first attracted to this area for the extensive wild rice fields located near the mouth of the Fox River. The Europeans were later attracted to this area for the fur trading. By the mid-1840s, the lumber industry – for a relatively short period of time – became the major attraction of this area due to the abundance of high quality pine and the presence of the Fox River.

By 1860, agriculture replaced logging as the principal industry of this area when conversion of large acreages of land within Brown County to wheat fields became commonplace. By 1900, interest in wheat farming began to decline as vital nutrients in the soil were depleted. Shortly thereafter, dairy farming rose to replace wheat farming as the number one land use in the county, the region, and the state. Such dairy farming is still very evident today. It is easy to see, therefore, that the natural resources of Brown County have long served an important and vital role in the development of the County. A particularly appropriate example of this can be seen in the history of Brown County’s waterways. The waters of the bay and the Fox River have long served as an important highway over which first furs and then agricultural products and later industrial products could be easily transported from the mid-western to eastern markets.

Even after all of this change, many scenic, unique, and sensitive natural resource areas still exist within Brown County. The most well-known include:

 The Bay of Green Bay.

 The Fox River.

 Coastal wetland resources such as Long Tail Point, Little Tail Point, Point au Sable, and the West Shore Wetlands.

 The Niagara Escarpment and the waterfalls at Fonferek Glen and Wequiock Falls.

 Cat Island Chain.

 The Neshota River Valley.

 Baird Creek.

2 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

History, Cultural Resources

It is believed that human habitation of the area that would one day become Brown County may have existed near the Red Banks area along the east shore of the Bay of Green Bay as far back as 7000 B.C. Since then, many different Indian tribes have periodically inhabited the lands adjacent to the Bay of Green Bay and the Fox River. Prior to the 1600s, the Winnebago and Menomonee Indian tribes inhabited what is now Brown County. However, by the mid-1600s, other tribes, such as the Ottawa, Huron, Fox, Sauk, Potawatomi, and Ojibwa, moved into the area as they were displaced from their ancestral lands further east, and they, in turn, displaced the Winnebago and Menomonee tribes. The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin began arriving in what is now Brown County in approximately 1820 after being displaced from New York State. The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin reservation is located in west-central Brown County and includes all or parts of Hobart, Ashwaubenon, Green Bay, and Pittsfield.

Jean Nicolet has commonly been credited with being the first European to set foot in what would one day become the State of Wisconsin when he arrived at the Red Banks area in 1634. This event heralded a period of rapid change for the area adjacent to the bay and the Fox River as other French explorers and fur traders quickly followed Nicolet. By the mid-1600s, French missionaries also began to visit the area. These visits eventually became so numerous that in 1671 the first permanent European development, the St. Francis Xavier mission, was established along the Fox River near the De Pere rapids. In 1701, following this initial wave of French explorers, fur traders, and missionaries, the French government established a military stockade called Fort St. Francis in the area along the bay near the mouth of the Fox River where the Canadian National Railroad yards in the City of Green Bay are now located. By 1764, the first recorded settler, Augustin de Langlade, moved to this area and established a trading post.

Eventually, the French presence in this region gave way to British influences. In 1761, the French Fort St. Francis was rebuilt by the British and renamed Fort Edward Augustus. In 1763, France ceded the area to England. By the mid-1780s, the colony established by de Langlade, which would eventually become part of the City of Green Bay, had reached a population of about 50 people.

In 1783, England ceded this region to the United States. However, it was not until after the War of 1812 that the British presence was, in turn, supplanted by the American when pioneers from New England and New York outnumbered the original French-Canadian settlers. By 1812, the population of the settlement established by de Langlade had increased to about 250 people. In 1816, Fort Edward Augustus was once again rebuilt and renamed Fort Howard. At that point in time, the Fort Howard area was the second largest settlement in Wisconsin. By 1824, the settlement originally founded by de Langlade had reached a population of about 500 people with an additional 600 troops stationed at Fort Howard. In 1824, Brown County’s first county courthouse was founded. In 1854, Green Bay incorporated as a city. Large-scale immigration into this area began by the late 1840s, so that by 1860 about 11,800 people inhabited the area identified today as Brown County.

Brown County was created in 1818 as part of the Michigan Territory, and at that time, it included much of Upper Michigan and all of Wisconsin from Lake Michigan to the Wisconsin River and south to Illinois. By the time the Wisconsin Territory was established in 1836, the southern one-third of Brown County had been removed to form new counties in the rapidly growing southeastern portion of the territory. When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, the counties of Door, Oconto, Outagamie, and Waupaca were created from Brown County. The following year, Kewaunee County was created. By 1853, Brown County was confined to its present size (534 square miles) when Shawano County was created. Brown County was formally established by congress in 1861.

Brown County’s first cities, Navarino (which later became part of the City of Green Bay) and De Pere, were founded in 1829 along the shores of the Fox River near the Bay of Green Bay. Other early Brown County communities, Astor (which later became part of the City of Green Bay) and Wright (which later became the Village of Wrightstown), were also located along the Fox River. Jurisdictional changes continue to the present with incorporation of the Town of Allouez as a village in 1986, the Towns of Bellevue and Hobart as villages in 2002, and the Town of Suamico as a village in 2003. The 24 municipalities of present-day Brown 3 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

County include 2 cities, 9 villages, and 13 towns. Since its inception, the City of Green Bay has always been and continues to be Brown County’s largest community.

Inventory and Analysis

This section of the Brown County Comprehensive Plan identifies the natural and cultural resources present within the County, notes current and future issues associated with each resource, and proposes actions and programs that the County should undertake to address those issues.

Surface Waters

Within the State of Wisconsin, waterways are generally governed as a component of the State’s Public Trust Doctrine, as described in Article IX Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution and interpreted over time by Wisconsin courts and the state Attorney General’s office. According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the public trust doctrine declares that all navigable waters are “common highways and forever free,” and are held in trust by the WDNR for the public.1 As a result of subsequent citizen action and court decisions, “…the public interest, once primarily interpreted to protect public rights to transportation on navigable waters, has been broadened to include protected public rights to water quality and quantity, recreational activities, and scenic beauty.”2

Wisconsin's Public Trust Doctrine requires the state to intervene to protect public rights in the commercial or recreational use of navigable waters. The WDNR, as the state agent charged with this responsibility, can do so through permitting requirements for water projects, through court action to stop nuisances in navigable waters, and through statutes authorizing local zoning ordinances that limit development along navigable waterways.3 The court has ruled WDNR staff, when they review projects that could impact Wisconsin lakes and rivers, must consider the cumulative impacts of individual projects in their decisions. In the 1966 Wisconsin Supreme Court Case, Hixon V. PSC, the justices wrote in their opinion the following: "A little fill here and there may seem to be nothing to become excited about. But one fill, though comparatively inconsequential, may lead to another, and another, and before long a great body may be eaten away until it may no longer exist. Our navigable waters are a precious natural heritage, once gone, they disappear forever.”4

Fox River / Bay of Green Bay Except for portions of southern and eastern portions of the County, the majority of water in Brown County, including major rivers such as the Fox River, East River, Duck Creek, and the Suamico River, flows into the Bay of Green Bay. The Fox River flows in a northeasterly direction through the approximate middle of Brown County.

Due to past point-source pollution, the Lower Green Bay and Fox River has been designated as an Area of Concern (AOC) under the United States – Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an AOC is a geographic area within the Great Lakes, “…that fail to meet the general or specific

1 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/waterways/about_us/doctrine.htm. 2 Quick, John. 1994. The Public Trust Doctrine in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1. 3 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/waterways/about_us/doctrine.htm. 4 Quick, John. 1994. The Public Trust Doctrine in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1. 4 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 objectives of the agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use of the area's ability to support aquatic life."5 The causes of impairment of the Fox River and Lower Green Bay have historically been thought of the result of point sources of pollution (end of pipe), such as industrial discharges and sewage treatment plants. Although additional progress remains to be made on point sources, nonpoint source pollution is now (post Clean Water Act) recognized as the major contributor to poor water quality in the Fox River and Lower Green Bay.

In addition to being designated as an AOC, the Lower Fox River (defined as the river stretch between the Lake Winnebago outlet through the Lower Bay of Green Bay) is listed on the federal “303(d)” impaired waters list due to excessive total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) loadings from nonpoint sources. Excessive TP and TSS loadings cause low dissolved oxygen levels, degraded habitat, and poor water quality. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nonpoint source pollutants may include:

 Excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas;  Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff (streets, parking lots, roofs) and energy production;  Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding stream banks;  Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems.6

On May 18, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report for the Lower Fox River. A TMDL is required under the Clean Water Act for all 303(d) impaired waters. According to the TMDL, 63.0 percent of the sources of total phosphorus and 97.6 percent of the total suspended solids within the Lower Fox River Basin are from nonpoint sources, such as residential yards, streets, parking lots, farm fields, and barnyards. Proper management of Brown County’s shoreland zones and environmentally sensitive areas will be a critical component of reducing total phosphorus and total suspended solids to attain the goals identified in the TMDL.

Lower Fox River TMDL restoration goals include:7

 Reduce excess algal growth. Aesthetic reasons aside, reducing blue-green algae will reduce the risks associated with algal toxins to recreational users of the river and bay. In addition, a decrease in algal cover will also increase light penetration into deeper waters of the bay.  Increase water clarity in Lower Green Bay. Achieving an average Secchi depth measurement of at least 1.14 meters will allow photosynthesis to occur at deeper levels in the bay, as well as improve conditions for recreational activities such as swimming.  Increase growth of beneficial submerged aquatic vegetation in Lower Green Bay. This will help reduce the re-suspension of sediment particles from the bottom of the bay up into the water column, which will increase water clarity.  Increase dissolved oxygen levels. This will better support aquatic life in the tributary streams and main stem of the Lower Fox River.

5 http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html. 6 http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/qa.html. 7 Total Maximum Daily Load and Watershed Management Plan for Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids in the Lower Fox River Basin and Lower Green Bay, August 2011, The Cadmus Group, Inc., Page 3, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/foxriver/documents/LFR_TMDL_EPA_Submittal_Aug_2011.pdf. 5 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

 Restore degraded habitat. This will better support aquatic life.

During the early spring snowmelt period or immediately following spring and summer rain storms, the effect of nonpoint sources of pollution becomes very apparent in the Fox River. The water turns dark brown, loaded with suspended solids which carry excess nutrients and other pollutants from a multitude of nonpoint sources. The solids are carried into the lower bay and as the water flow slows, the solids drop out of the water column and are deposited in the lower bay. The photo documenting a Fox River sediment plume was taken in April 2011 and is included in the Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan.8

Although the excess total phosphorus and total suspended solids generally enter the bay from the Fox River, tributaries to the Fox River and those that drain directly into the Bay of Green Bay also contributes significant nonpoint source pollution loads. Specifically, additional 303(d) listed rivers and streams within Brown County and their subject pollutants include Apple Creek (TP and TSS), Ashwaubenon Creek (TP and TSS), Baird Creek (TP and TSS), Bower Creek (TP and TSS), Branch River (Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)), Duck Creek (TP, TSS, and Mercury), Dutchman Creek (TP and Ammonia), East River (TP, TSS, and Unspecified Metals), Kewaunee River (PCBs), Neshota River (TP), and Plum Creek (TP and TSS).

In order to address TP within the Fox River and Bay of Green Bay, the Brown County Executive established a working committee to identify different methodologies that could find cost-effective means to achieve the TMDL goals, while mitigating compliance impacts and costs to municipalities, utilities, and businesses. The committee, consisting of a broad cross-section of the community, including county, local, and tribal government, industry, business interests, higher education, and utilities reviewed the existing literature and data related to the Fox-Wolf River Watershed and provided the following recommendations in a white paper report to reduce total phosphorus loading in the Fox River and Bay:9

1. Build a broad based coalition of stakeholders. 2. Reduce nonpoint source loads from agricultural operations through the use of demonstration best

8 Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan: http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/forms_and_documents/?department=097c0e79486a&subdepartment=7c17181709a3. 9 Brown County Phosphorus Committee White Paper, February 2013: http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_296d397d40aa/?department=eb68032a345c&subdepartment=58e10b3bd528. 6 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

management practices (BMPs) on lands that contribute the most phosphorus to the surface waters. 3. Facilitate implementation of adaptive management that would allow point source dischargers to install BMPs within their boundaries and partnering with stakeholders outside of their boundaries to meet TMDL water quality criteria. 4. Investigate the feasibility of a private waste transformation facility that will recover energy and reuse phosphorus and organic matter. 5. Explore the creation of a program for implementation of nutrient credit trading. 6. Create a nutrient / erosion compliance framework that includes a combination of voluntary incentives and progressive rule enforcement. 7. Work with legislators to expand confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) designation to cover all but the smallest operations, and seek their assistance for staffing and enforcement funding. 8. Explore cropland preservation initiatives in Brown County to maintain existing agricultural operations.

In spite of continued pollution-related challenges, a significant part of Brown County’s identity is defined by the Fox River and Bay of Green Bay. Improving the quality of the water of these features through proper urban and agricultural shoreland management along the innumerable tributaries will ensure the surface water quality of the bay and river does not degrade, but rather, continues to improve. The health of the Fox River, Bay of Green Bay, and other rivers, creeks, and streams tributary to them have a profound impact on the regional economy.

Although much work remains to be done in the area of nonpoint source pollution, since the advent of the Clean Water Act, the waters of the Fox River and lower bay have improved to the point where it is now a world-class walleye fishery, hosting anglers from throughout the United States during the spring spawning run. The Bay of Green Bay is now a well- known location for trophy-sized northern pike, muskellunge, and smallmouth bass. According to the American Sportfishing Association, sport fishing provides $2.27 billion in economic impact per year in the State of Wisconsin.10 By continuing to improve the water quality of the Fox River and Bay of Green Bay, Brown County can continue to capture its share of this economic resource.

Other Surface Water Features

Other significant surface water resources in Brown County include its three named natural lakes: the small Lily, Middle, and Third Lakes located adjacent to one another in the eastern portion of the County. Also included are the numerous smaller rivers and streams, the biggest of which include Duck Creek, the East River, and the Suamico River.

Lily Lake Lily Lake is a 43 acre seepage lake that is up to 21 feet in depth at its deepest point (Figure 8-1). The entire shoreline is buffered by woodlands and wetlands and contains a county park at its northern end.

10 American Sportfishing Association: http://asafishing.org/uploads/2011_ASASportfishing_in_America_Report_January_2013.pdf. 7 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Figure 8-1: Lily Lake Bathymetry

Facilities at Lily Lake County Park include picnic areas, two fishing docks (one ADA accessible), boat launch (no motors), open air shelter, and parking. Due to the generally shallow nature of the lake, periodic winterkills of fish have occurred during severe winters with extended cold snaps and heavy snow, most recently during the winter of 2013-2014. Brown County utilizes an aerator to maintain dissolved oxygen levels during the winter months. However, an aerator can only maintain dissolved oxygen levels in relatively close proximity to the aerator, and during especially severe winters may not be adequate to 8 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 prevent winterkill in other parts of the lake. According to the Wisconsin Lakes Book, the lake contains northern pike, largemouth bass, and panfish. The lake is popular for day fishing trips either from the fishing docks or from a non-motorized (except electric trolling motor) watercraft. The lake is also popular with kayakers, canoeists, and bird watchers.

From 2006 through 2009, the Brown County Planning Commission, with funding provided from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, prepared a series of reports about Lily Lake.11 The reports started from a watershed perspective, with the final report focusing exclusively on Lily Lake and its water, vegetative, and fishery characteristics. The series of reports found that Lily Lake is becoming more eutrophic in nature due to increasing aquatic vegetation and increasing dissolved phosphorus levels. The report recommends the installation of stormwater management facilities at the parking lot and boat launch to capture stormwater runoff rather than running directly down the boat launch and into the lake. Additional recommendations include:

 Replicating the study every 5 to 10 years to determine whether the lake is continuing to become more eutrophic in nature.  Install rain gardens in the picnic area to capture overland sheet flow of stormwater before it reaches the lake.  Monitor the lake for the introduction of new exotic, invasive plant species.  Establish a boat washing facility to remove invasive plants from boats and trailers.  Developing an educational kiosk to inform visitors of the Lily Lake fishery and aquatic vegetation.

Middle Lake Middle Lake is a seven acre seepage lake located immediately south of Lily Lake, separated by approximately 450 feet of wooded wetlands. The northern shoreline is within the boundaries of Lily Lake County Park, while the southern shoreline is parceled into two separate residential lots. The entire shoreline of Middle Lake, including the privately-held lands, is heavily wooded due to the wetlands that surround it. Since wetlands surround Middle Lake, there is currently no improved public access to the lake. The maximum depth of Middle Lake is seven feet.

Third Lake Third Lake is a six acre seepage lake and is the southernmost lake in the Lily Lake system, lying approximately 1,200 feet to the southwest of Middle Lake. All of the shoreline of Third Lake is in private ownership, however, as with Middle Lake, Third Lake is surrounded by a heavily wooded wetland, providing a buffer to impacts from neighboring residential and agricultural activities. Third Lake has an intermittent tributary that drains the lake from its southern end, eventually reaching the Neshota River. The maximum depth of Third Lake is 15 feet.

Duck Creek Duck Creek is a tributary to the Bay of Green Bay and is located in the Villages of Hobart and Howard in the western portion of the County. From its headwaters in Outagamie County, it flows northeasterly until it flows into the bay in the Village of Howard. It is a slow-moving stream and is classified as a Warm Water Sport Fishery. Agricultural and limited rural development are located along the majority of this stream; although, significant amounts of urban development outside its floodway and wetlands are present in the Village of Howard and the extreme northeastern portion of the Village of Hobart. Key threats to the health of this waterway are sedimentation due to erosion from construction sites and farm fields and excessive nutrients caused by nonpoint source pollution due to storm runoff from lawns, farms, and other sources.

East River The East River is a major tributary of the Fox River. It is a navigable river that flows northward 39 miles from its headwaters in northern Calumet County to one mile upstream of the Bay of Green Bay/Fox River

11 Lily Lake Reports: http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/?department=2317176c7f00&subdepartment=e93fb7f7b4bf.

9 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 mouth, and it is east of and generally parallel to the Fox River. In Brown County, it extends about 33 miles from the Brown County/Calumet County border east of STH 32/57 to its downstream end at the Fox River one mile south of the Bay of Green Bay and drains about 148 square miles of the County. It is a sluggish, hard water, and very turbid stream. The northernmost third of the river is classified as a Warm Water Sport Fishery. While urban development is adjacent to approximately the northern third of the stream, agricultural lands are adjacent to the remainder of the stream. Many of its banks have been pastured and are badly eroded. Sediments have blanketed the streambed (filling in pools and riffles), thereby degrading habitat for fish species and associated fauna. The East River continues to be exposed to many adverse environmental impacts, including sedimentation, excessive nutrient inputs, low levels of dissolved oxygen for a Warm Water Sport Fishery, loss of in-stream habitat, excessive suspended solids leading to turbidity, and fish kills due to nonpoint source pollution, cropland erosion, and barnyard runoff. For these reasons, the East River has also been identified as an Impaired Water.

In 1987, the East River was designated as a priority watershed under the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program. Subsequently in March 1993, a report titled “Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the East River Priority Watershed Project” was prepared by a consortium of state, county, and local agencies. The intent of the plan is to guide the implementation of nonpoint source control measures within the East River watershed and to provide the basis for the WDNR to enter into cost-share and local assistance grants to implement water quality improvement measures. The plan’s implementation recommendations, including education, installation of vegetative buffer strips, and other techniques, should continue to be implemented throughout the East River Watershed to continue the East River’s improvement in overall water quality.

Suamico River The Suamico River is a major river in northwestern Brown County and drains to the bay. It is a navigable river that flows eastward 16 miles from its headwaters in Shawano and Outagamie Counties to the bay in the Village of Suamico. In Brown County, it is a sluggish, hard water, and very turbid stream. The easternmost portion of the river is classified as a Warm Water Sport Fishery with bottom materials comprised of sand and silt. The remainder is classified as a Full Fish and Other Aquatic Life Water with bottom materials comprised of rubble and gravel. Agricultural and rural residential land uses are adjacent to the majority of the stream. The Suamico River continues to be impacted by nonpoint source pollutants including fine sediments carried by stormwater and excess phosphorus.

Branch River The Branch River begins in southeastern Brown County and continues to flow to the southeast, eventually joining the Manitowoc River, where it flows into Lake Michigan in Manitowoc. The Branch River is a sluggish, hard water, turbid stream. Bottom materials largely consist of silt, sand, and gravel. The river flows through primarily agricultural areas of southeastern Brown County and northwestern Manitowoc County, and therefore, is occasionally negatively affected by nonpoint source agricultural runoff.

Neshota River The Neshota River begins at its headwaters in the Town of Ledgeview in central Brown County and flows to the southeast, to the West Twin River and Lake Michigan in Two Rivers. The Neshota River is a sluggish, hard water, turbid stream. Bottom materials consist of silt, rubble, and gravel. Although its shoreline is largely wooded, its small tributaries, and therefore, the Neshota River are negatively affected by fine sediments carried by stormwater and other nonpoint source pollutants.

10 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

In addition to the aforementioned rivers, there are a number of smaller creeks that also provide critical aquatic and shoreland habitat in Brown County, including:

 South Branch of the Little Suamico River  Middle Branch of the Little Suamico River  North Branch of the Little Suamico River  Trout Creek  Plum Creek  Dutchman’s Creek  Ashwaubenon Creek  Baird Creek  Bower Creek  Wequiock Creek  King Creek  Denmark Creek

Figure 8-2 depicts the surface water features in Brown County.

11 Figure 8-2 Major Surface Water Features Brown County Comprehensive Plan Update

V. Pulaski Oconto County

Suamico River T. Pittsfield

V. Suamico Bay of Green Bay Shawano County

L

a

n

c a

s t e T. Green Bay r C T. Scott r e e V. Howard W k

e

q T

u r

i o

o u

c

t k er C C. iv C R r

Greenr e e e e e n k Bay e u

k a ew ek K re C k uc C. Green Bay D Ba ird Cr r ee T. Humboldt e k iv V. Hobart R k x e o e r F C n V. Allouez a m V. Bellevue h k tc V. Ashwaubenone u re B T. Eaton D C C. De Pere ow n e Kewaunee County o r C n r e r ee Outagamie County b u e k Lily Lake a iv w R T. Ledgeview Middle Lake h s st Third Lake A a E

T. Lawrence T. New Denmark T. Rockland T. Glenmore N es ho ta Apple Creek R iv V. Denmark er

T. Wrightstown V. Wrightstown Manitowoc County

P B l r u a m n c Wisconsin C h r e R e k iv e r T. Morrison T. Holland

Calumet County

Municipal Districts Lakes and Ponds Rivers & Streams Ü 00.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Source: Brown County Planning and Land Services, 8/14/2014 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Watersheds

Brown County is located within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence drainage basin. Approximately one-fourth of the County is drained by streams tributary to Lake Michigan, and the remainder of the area is drained by streams tributary to the Bay of Green Bay and through the bay to Lake Michigan. A watershed is an area of land where all of the water on it and under it drains to the same place. Within this area of land, all living things are linked by the common waterway. Figure 8-3 depicts the general watersheds within Brown County.

Lower Fox River Basin

About 311 square miles of the County, or about 58 percent, are located within the Lower Fox River Basin. Portions of the Apple and Ashwaubenon Creeks Watershed, the Duck Creek Watershed, the East River Watershed, and the Plum Creek Watershed are located within this area. These lands generally drain northeastward to the Bay of Green Bay.

The East River Watershed encompasses about 203 square miles, or about 38 percent of the County. Major streams within this area include the East and Fox Rivers and Baird and Bower Creeks.

The Apple and Ashwaubenon Creeks Watershed encompass about 47 square miles, or about 9 percent of the County. Major streams within this area include Apple, Ashwaubenon, and Dutchman Creeks.

The Plum Creek Watershed encompasses about 13 square miles, or about 2 percent of the County. Major streams within this area include Plum Creek.

The Duck Creek Watershed encompasses about 48 square miles, or about 9 percent of the County. Major streams within this area include Duck and Trout Creeks.

Twin-Door-Kewaunee River Basin

About 115 square miles of the County, or about 21 percent, are located within the Twin-Door-Kewaunee River Basin. Portions of the Kewaunee River Watershed, the Red River and Sturgeon Bay Watershed, and the West Twin River Watershed are located within this area. The lands within the Kewaunee River Watershed and the West Twin River Watershed generally drain southeastward to Lake Michigan, while the lands within the Red River and Sturgeon Bay Watershed generally drain northwestward to the Bay of Green Bay.

The West Twin River Watershed encompasses about 75 square miles, or about 14 percent of the County. Major streams within this area include the Devils and Neshota Rivers and King and Twin Hill Creeks.

The Kewaunee River Watershed encompasses about 27 square miles, or about 5 percent of the planning area. Major streams within this area include School Creek.

The Red River and Sturgeon Bay Watershed encompasses about 13 square miles, or about 2 percent of the planning area. Major streams within this area include Gilson Creek.

Upper Green Bay Basin

About 69 square miles of the County, or about 13 percent, are located within the Upper Green Bay Basin. A portion of the Suamico and Little Suamico Rivers Watershed is located within this area. These lands generally drain eastward to the bay. Major streams within this area include the Suamico River.

13 Figure 8-3 Major Watersheds Brown County Comprehensive Plan Update

V. Pulaski Oconto County Suamico/Little Suamico

T. Pittsfield Rivers

V. Suamico Bay of Red River/ Green Bay Sturgeon Bay Shawano County

T. Green Bay Duck V. Howard T. Scott

Creek C. Green Bay River

C. Green Bay Kewaunee

r T. Humboldt e iv V. Hobart R x o F V. Allouez V. Bellevue V. Ashwaubenon C. De Pere T. Eaton Kewaunee County

Outagamie County T. Ledgeview Creeks West East / Fox Apple/Ashwaubenon Twin River T. Lawrence Rivers T. New Denmark T. Rockland T. Glenmore

V. Denmark

T. Wrightstown V. Wrightstown Manitowoc County

Branch Wisconsin River Lower T. Morrison Manitowoc Creeks T. Holland River Plum/Kankapot

Calumet County

Municipal Districts Watersheds Rivers & Streams Ü 00.5 1 2 3 4 Lakes and Ponds Miles Source: WDNR, Brown County Planning and Land Services, 8/15/2014 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Manitowoc River Basin

About 42 square miles of the County, or about 8 percent, are located within the Manitowoc River Basin. Portions of the Branch River Watershed and the Lower Manitowoc River Watershed are located within this area. These lands generally drain southeastward to the Manitowoc River just west of the City of Manitowoc.

The Branch River Watershed encompasses about 40 square miles, or about 7 percent of the County. Major streams within this area include the Branch River.

The Lower Manitowoc River Watershed encompasses about 2 square miles, or about 1 percent of the County. Major streams within this area include Mud Creek.

Recommendations

Due to the overwhelming importance to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of Brown County and to its quality of life, identity, and character, the protection and preservation of the County’s surface waters should be its highest natural resources priority. In addition to the general floodplain, shoreland, environmentally sensitive area, conservancy, park, parkway, and cultural preservation recommendations that follow, the County should also incorporate the conservation by design standards, pedestrian-oriented transportation standards, architectural design standards, and landscaping recommendations set forth in this and other chapters of the comprehensive plan.

One action that the County could start at minimal cost is to work with local nonprofit and volunteer groups to stabilize the shorelines of and establish vegetated buffers along the County’s rivers, streams, and creeks. This could consist of planting native grasses, flowers, shrubs, and trees in order to reduce erosion, increase infiltration, and filter out pollutants. This can occur in any setting imaginable, including both developed and undeveloped areas and urban and rural areas.

Efforts to showcase the Bay of Green Bay and the Fox River as the central natural resource attractions of the County should continue and would then address many of the objectives of this plan, as well.

Implementing these and the recommendations to follow would address the goal and objectives of this chapter, the issues raised at the visioning session, and the concerns raised at the discussion group sessions. Two of the top ten ranked issues at the visioning session concerned the importance of water quality protection.

Floodplains

Floodplains are natural extensions of surface waters. They store floodwaters, reduce flood peaks and velocities, and reduce sedimentation. They also provide wildlife habitat and serve to filter out pollution from water.

Like surface waters, the importance of floodplains is also recognized and is regulated by federal, state, and local governments. The State of Wisconsin mandates floodplain zoning for all communities under Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 116. These minimum standards must be implemented in order to meet eligibility requirements for federal flood insurance programs. Within Brown County, floodplains in the unincorporated parts of the County are regulated under Chapter 23, Floodplains Ordinance for Brown County, Wisconsin, of the Brown County Code of Ordinances. Within the incorporated parts of the County, floodplains are regulated by the individual cities and villages. Whenever development is proposed near a stream, river, lake, or pond, it is the property owner’s responsibility to ensure the proposed development is in compliance with local, county, and state requirements and that the appropriate permits are obtained prior to beginning construction.

15 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

For regulatory, insurance, and planning purposes, the 100-year recurrence interval flood hazard area (also referred to as the regional flood) is most often used. This is the land that has a 1 percent chance of being flooded in any given year. Although all rivers and streams possess floodplains, the only mapped floodplains within the County are those generally associated with the larger rivers and streams and many of those that have experienced significant amounts of development. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared floodplain mapping for many of the larger rivers and streams in Brown County. The Brown County Planning Commission and many local communities also often require detailed flood studies and the mapping of floodplains when development occurs adjacent to rivers and streams that do not have a mapped FEMA floodplain. Figure 8-4 presents a diagram of a floodplain and identifies its constituent parts, including both the floodway and flood fringe.

The following are several threats to floodplains and the resource values that they represent:

 Filling, which diminishes the flood storage capacity of the floodplain. This could have the effect of increasing the elevation or velocity of floodwaters to the detriment of upstream or downstream properties.

 Grading, which can degrade the resource functions of floodplains, such as filtering pollutants or providing habitat.

 Impediments, which include the encroachment of buildings or the construction of undersized culverts and bridge openings in the floodplain and which can adversely affect the size and proper functioning of the floodplain and can pose potential hazards to adjacent residents and passersby.

 Impervious surfaces, which can increase the velocity of the flood flows, increase the amount of pollutants, reduce the amount of natural wildlife habitat, and limit the amount of infiltration of stormwater runoff into the ground.

The FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplains within the County are depicted in Figure 8-5. In addition to these mapped floodplains, local communities and/or individual property owners have completed more detailed flood studies and received letters of map revision (LOMR) or letters of map amendment (LOMA) from the WDNR and FEMA changing the boundaries of the mapped floodplains. These studies, as available, are identified in red crosshatch on the FEMA floodplain map. More details on the floodplain boundaries and LOMAs/LOMRs may be viewed on the Brown County Land Information Office online parcel map.

16 Figure 8-4 Figure 8-5 FEMA 100-Year Floodplains Brown County Comprehensive Plan Update

V. Pulaski Oconto County

V. Suamico T. Pittsfield Bay of

Shawano County Green Bay

T. Green Bay V. Howard T. Scott

C. Green Bay

C. Green Bay

T. Humboldt V. Hobart

V. Allouez V. Bellevue V. Ashwaubenon C. De Pere T. Eaton Kewaunee County Outagamie County T. Ledgeview

T. Lawrence T. New Denmark T. Rockland T. Glenmore

V. Denmark

T. Wrightstown V. Wrightstown Manitowoc County

Wisconsin T. Morrison

T. Holland

Calumet County

Municipal Districts Areas with Approved Letters of Floodplain Map Amendment or Map Revision FEMA 100-Year Floodplains Ü 00.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Source: Brown County Planning and Land Services, 8/13/2014 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Shorelands

Shorelands are the areas of interface between land and water. In its natural condition, shorelands are comprised of thick and diverse vegetation that protect lakes, rivers, and streams by filtering out pollutants and sediments. Natural shorelands also provide scenic beauty and critical habitat for fish and wildlife. However, shorelands are very susceptible to small changes in the surrounding environment. Even slight increases in impervious surfaces, sediment or nutrient loadings, or the introduction of exotic invasive species of plants have profound negative impacts on the shoreland area, riparian zone, and surface water feature. When shoreland areas are developed, if proper erosion control and stormwater management techniques are not in place during and after construction, vegetation is lost, surface water quality is degraded, and fish and wildlife habitat is lost. Figure 8-6 depicts a generalized shoreland zone diagram.

Within Brown County, when one thinks of shorelands, one generally thinks of the Green Bay or Fox River shorelines, which with a few notable exceptions, have already been converted to developed uses such as homes and businesses. However, it is important to note there are many miles of shorelands associated with smaller rivers and streams, such as the East River, Duck Creek, Suamico River, Baird Creek, Plum Creek, and the Branch River, as well as the innumerable unnamed tributaries throughout the County. Except for surface water which seeps into the groundwater table, all Brown County surface water eventually reaches Lake Michigan through the Fox River and Bay of Green Bay or the countless other streams and rivers that flow through Brown County. In order to improve the water quality of Lake Michigan and the Bay of Green Bay, we need to begin by improving the management of our shoreland areas within Brown County.

Primary environmental threats to shoreland areas within Brown County include:  Sedimentation from construction site and agricultural erosion, which can cover fish spawning grounds, inhibit healthy aquatic plant growth, and clog the gills of some fish.  Increased water temperature from stormwater runoff over impervious surfaces, which increases surface water temperature and therefore reduces dissolved oxygen levels for fish.

19 Figure 8-6 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

 Increased algal blooms from the introduction of external nutrients (specifically total phosphorus) into surface water features, thereby decreasing oxygen levels and water clarity.  Mowed grass yards to the water’s edge, which eliminates critical nearshore habitat for songbirds, ducks, reptiles, amphibians, and fish; provides a direct conduit for fertilizers, pet waste, and lawn clippings to enter the surface water; and creates additional shore erosion issues.

Considering the major issues confronting Wisconsin’s and Brown County’s shoreland areas, shorelands are recognized by the State of Wisconsin and Brown County as irreplaceable resources that are subject to minimum development standards. Wisconsin requires counties to administer a shoreland zoning ordinance for all unincorporated areas of the state under Section 281.31 and 59.692 of the Wisconsin State Statutes and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 115. Section 281.31(1) states the purpose of shoreland zoning is to, “…further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structure and land uses, and reserve shore cover and natural beauty.”12

The areas subject to shoreland zoning include all lands within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark or to the landward side of the floodplain, whichever is greater, of all navigable rivers and streams. In addition to rivers and streams, all lands within 1,000 feet of flowages, natural lakes, and natural ponds are also subject to shoreland zoning regulations. Within Brown County, the only 1,000 foot shoreland zones are those around the bay shore and Lily, Middle, Third, and Keweaton Lakes in the Town of Eaton. Man-made lakes, such as those in the Village of Suamico are not subject to shoreland zoning, unless those lands are also within the 300-foot shoreland zone of a nearby waterway, or within 1,000 feet of the Bay of Green Bay.

Although all waterways have shoreland areas, only those deemed “navigable” are subject to shoreland zoning. A waterway is assumed to be navigable if shown on United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the WDNR Surface Water Resources publication, or the digital Brown County surface water layer. A waterway may be determined to be “non-navigable” only through a formal qualified Brown County or WDNR staff determination. According to the WDNR, based on the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision DeGayner v. DNR (70 Wis.2d 936 – 1975), “A stream is navigable in fact if it is navigable by a canoe or other small craft on a reoccurring basis (i.e. annually during spring thaw) and has a discernible bed and banks. Obstacles or interruptions to navigation such as brush, fallen trees, tight meanders, do not make a stream non- navigable.”13 Therefore, even if a waterway has no flow during seasonally dry periods, it may be considered to be navigable if it has a defined bed and bank and flows during the spring thaw or other wet periods. Only WDNR or qualified Brown County staff may make a navigability determination.

12 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/281/III/31. 13 WDNR Floodplain-Shoreland Management for Local Officials, Chapter Revised 2005, p. 24. 21 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

As noted in the opening paragraph, shoreland zoning extends 300 feet from the ordinary high water mark, or to the landward side of the floodplain, whichever is greater of a navigable river or stream. Therefore, 300 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a navigable river or stream is the minimum shoreland zone distance. Where the floodplain (100-year) extends beyond 300 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the waterway, the shoreland zone (and all shoreland zone requirements) extends to the edge of the floodplain. In addition to shoreland zone regulations, any proposed construction or land disturbing activity within the floodplain is subject all local, state, and federal floodplain regulations, as well as shoreland zone requirements.

Although primarily applicable in unincorporated areas of counties, shoreland rules apply in incorporated cities and villages within any areas annexed or incorporated after May 7, 1982. Those lands that incorporated or were annexed from a town after this date must abide by, at a minimum, the shoreland rules previously in place by the county. However, the program must be administered by the incorporated community or the community may contract back with the county to administer the program.

Within Brown County, shorelands (and shoreland wetlands) are regulated under Chapter 22 – Shorelands and Wetlands. The administration of the program is through the Zoning division of the Brown County Planning and Land Services Department. It is important to note that all navigable waterways are subject to Chapter 22, including small streams, unless deemed non-navigable by qualified Brown County and/or WDNR staff. As stated in Section 22.07 of the Brown County Code of Ordinances, the use of any land or water; the size, shape, and placement of lots; the use, size, type, and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste disposal facilities, the filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, the cutting of shoreland vegetation, and the subdivision of lots within the shoreland zone are all subject to review and permitting through Brown County Zoning. Shoreland regulations also apply to public entities when performing work, such as replacing a road culvert, within the shoreland zone. Other specific regulations include minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet for publicly sewered development and 20,000 square feet for privately sewered development and new structures must generally be set back a minimum of 75’ from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the navigable waterway. Exceptions to the 75’ setback are allowed for structures existing prior to the shoreland ordinance being adopted. Additionally, where there are adjacent structures located closer than 75’, a new structure’s minimum setback may be the average of the existing structures.

Natural vegetation along a lake or river provides critical filtration of nutrients and sediments from stormwater runoff prior to the stormwater reaching the surface water feature. Because of this critical function, there are limits on vegetation removal within the shoreland zone. Within the shoreland zone, a vegetative buffer must be maintained from the OHWM to 35’ landward to provide filtration. However, the removal of dead, diseased, or dying trees and shrubbery within the 35’ vegetative buffer is allowed. A

22 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 property owner may also create a clear view corridor/path through the vegetative buffer of no more than 30’ wide over a 100’ distance.

Due to the intricacies associated with development or redevelopment within the shoreland zone, property owners or their contractors should consult with Brown County Zoning to determine how being within the shoreland zone could affect the proposed development as early in the process as possible and preferably prior to the actual purchase of the lot. Oftentimes, people will purchase a lot and commission a design for a home without a full understanding of the environmental limitations associated with the parcel. This becomes problematic when the contractor or property owner requests a shoreland permit to commence construction, but the proposed home does not meet the shoreland zone requirements. The Brown County Planning and Land Services Department recommends visiting our office during regular office hours (8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Monday – Friday) to discuss potential issues prior to purchasing a lot, or preferably when first starting to look for vacant land upon which to build to avoid any delays or expenses associated with redesigning or moving a designed home to meet the shoreland regulations.

During construction within the shoreland zone, it is critical the prime contractor and all the subcontractors follow the regulations associated with proper erosion control and stormwater management to prevent construction site sediments from washing into the surface water resource. After construction, it is the homeowner’s responsibility to understand that along with the natural beauty and recreation opportunities associated with a home in the shoreland zone, there are equally important responsibilities to future generations of shoreland property owners and the wildlife dependent on a healthy lake, river, pond, or stream.

Wetlands

Wetlands are characterized by water at or near the ground level, by soils exhibiting physical or chemical characteristics of waterlogging, or by the presence of wetland-adapted vegetation. Wetlands are significant natural resources that have several important functions. They enhance water quality by absorbing excess nutrients within the roots, stems, and leaves of plants and by slowing the flow of water to let suspended pollutants settle out. Wetlands help regulate storm runoff, which minimizes floods and periods of low flow. They also provide essential habitat for many types of wildlife and offer recreational, educational, and aesthetic opportunities to the County.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wetlands Inventory Map identifies the general locations of wetlands throughout the State and Brown County. Wetlands that are less than two acres in size are typically identified with a point symbol, however, due to the county-wide scale of the map, they would not be legible and are, therefore, not included. The WDNR digital wetlands inventory identifies approximately 38,142 acres (59.6 square miles) of wetlands within Brown County. As depicted on the map, the largest contiguous areas of wetlands are associated with the west shore of the bay in Howard and Suamico, the Red Banks Alvar area southwest of Dyckesville, the Baird Creek and Neshota River headwaters in Humboldt and Eaton, and the large wetland areas in eastern Holland and eastern Morrison. Other more isolated wetlands are scattered throughout the County or located along waterways. Figure 8-7 generally depicts the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources identified wetlands in Brown County.

23 Figure 8-7 WDNR Wetlands Brown County Comprehensive Plan Update

Oconto County V. Pulaski

V. Suamico T. Pittsfield Bay of

Shawano County Green Bay

T. Green Bay V. Howard T. Scott

C. Green Bay

C. Green Bay

T. Humboldt V. Hobart

V. Allouez V. Bellevue V. Ashwaubenon C. De Pere T. Eaton Kewaunee County Outagamie County T. Ledgeview

T. Lawrence T. New Denmark T. Rockland T. Glenmore

V. Denmark

T. Wrightstown V. Wrightstown Manitowoc County

Wisconsin T. Morrison

T. Holland

Calumet County Municipal Districts Ü WDNR Wetlands 00.5 1 2 3 4 Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Miles Brown County Planning and Land Services, 8/13/2014 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

The primary threat to wetlands is filling. Although an array of federal, state, and local regulations help protect them, wetlands (especially smaller ones) are still lost to road construction and other development activities. The draining of wetlands can also occur through tilling and rerouting of surface water. Even if wetlands are not directly filled, drained, or developed, they still can be impacted by adjacent uses. Siltation from erosion or pollutants entering via stormwater runoff can destroy the wetland. Previously healthy and diverse wetlands can be severely degraded to the point at which only the hardiest plants like cattails can survive. Invasive plant species, such as phragmites and purple loosestrife can also have a significant negative effect on wetlands by overrunning the native wetlands species and creating monocultures of unusable wetland habitat.

Under current regulatory requirements, all wetlands are off-limits to development unless appropriate permits and approvals are obtained. In addition, under certain situations, agricultural activities may be regulated within wetlands. In the unincorporated parts of Brown County, wetlands within the shoreland zone of navigable waterways, as identified on the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory maps are zoned by Brown County through the Brown County Shorelands and Wetlands Ordinance (Chapter 22 of the Brown County Code of Ordinances). Wetlands within this zone are generally unavailable for development unless a wetlands zoning map amendment is reviewed and approved by Brown County and the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. In order to have a viable case for a rezoning, a property owner would need to hire a certified wetland delineator to identify the wetland boundaries and then document that the proposed development activity would not take place within the identified wetland.

Wetlands are also regulated through the Brown County Land Division and Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 21) of the Brown County Code. Chapter 21 regulates wetlands as part of the land division process, and generally requires wetland delineations be performed as part of the county review process. In addition to the wetland itself, Chapter 21 requires a 35’ environmentally sensitive area (ESA) setback from the wetland boundary to ensure the ecological functions of the wetland remain intact. Within the wetland ESA setback, no filling, cutting, grading, or development may occur. The wetland and ESA setbacks are identified on the recorded land division map to make future owners of the parcel aware of the building limitations on the site. In addition to the Brown County requirements, potential developers and landowners should be aware that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also regulate activity in wetlands.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) include parts of the landscape, generally associated with surface water features, which should be protected from intensive development. They include all lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, floodways, and other locally designated significant and unique natural resource features. ESA regulations also may include a setback (buffer) from these features to ensure the environmental functions of these features are not negatively impacted from development too close to the features. In addition, they include areas of steep slopes (slopes 20 percent or greater) when located within or adjacent to any of the 25 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 features or buffers previously noted.

Within Brown County, the regulated ESAs and setback from ESAs (if applicable) include:

 All wetlands 2 acres or less.  All wetlands greater than 2 acres + 35’ setback.  All floodways + 35’ setback or 75’ setback from OHWM, whichever is greater.  All navigable waterways + 75’ setback from OHWM when no flood study is available (setback is from both sides of OHWM).  All waterways determined to be non-navigable, but are identified as streams (perennial or intermittent) on USGS or Brown County GIS maps + 35’ setback from top of bank (setback is from both sides of top of bank).  Slopes 20% or greater + 20’ setback from the top and bottom of slope when the slope extends into any of the listed ESAs or their associated setback buffers.  Other significant natural resource features, including on an individual basis:  River and stream headwaters, groundwater recharge areas, unique woodlands, high-value wildlife habitat areas, geologic and natural area sites, wet or poorly drained organic soils, areas identified in the Wisconsin Land Legacy Report,14 and natural communities as identified in Wisconsin’s Natural History Inventory.15

Development, including cutting, filling, grading, or any other land disturbing activity is generally prohibited within the environmentally sensitive area, including the setback. These areas are intended to remain in a natural state to protect the surface water feature and provide critical habitat to plants and animals. However, management of ESAs through the removal of dead, diseased, or dying trees, removal of non-native invasive plant species, and/or the planting of native Wisconsin plant species is strongly encouraged.

Threats to ESAs are similar to those of shorelands, including sedimentation, excess nutrients, and invasive plant species colonization. In addition, the quality and effectiveness of ESAs could be severely reduced should adjacent development change drainage patterns or remove native vegetation from the lands within or immediately adjacent to the ESAs. Such disturbances can also introduce invasive plant species to the ESAs, which can result in loss of native vegetation, species diversity, and wildlife habitat. Figure 8-8 generally depicts ESAs in Brown County.

14 Wisconsin Land Legacy Report, WDNR, 2006: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/LandLegacy/. 15 Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory, WDNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/.

26 Figure 8-8 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Brown County Comprehensive Plan Update

Oconto County V. Pulaski

V. Suamico T. Pittsfield Bay of

Shawano County Green Bay

T. Green Bay V. Howard T. Scott

C. Green Bay

C. Green Bay

T. Humboldt V. Hobart

V. Allouez V. Bellevue V. Ashwaubenon C. De Pere T. Eaton Kewaunee County Outagamie County T. Ledgeview

T. Lawrence T. New Denmark T. Rockland T. Glenmore

V. Denmark

T. Wrightstown V. Wrightstown Manitowoc County

Wisconsin T. Morrison

T. Holland

Calumet County Municipal Districts Ü Environmentally Sensitive Areas 00.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Source: Brown County Planning and Land Services, 8/13/2014 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

The benefits derived from environmentally sensitive areas contribute positively to the overall environmental health of the County. Such benefits include:

• Recharge of groundwater supplies, the source of drinking water for most rural Brown County residents. • Maintenance of surface water and groundwater quality, which lends itself to improved drinking water supplies and recreational experiences. • Attenuation of flood flows and stages, which decreases the risk of flood damage to adjacent property owners. • Maintenance of base flows of streams and watercourses, which is important to the continued well- being of wildlife habitat. • Reduction of soil erosion, which is vital for the continued high productivity of the County’s agricultural lands. • Abatement of air pollution, which results in health benefits for County residents, as well as for vegetation and wildlife. • Abatement of noise pollution, which lends itself to use as a filter or buffer between adjacent and potentially conflicting land uses. • Favorable modification of climate, which can result in moderation of temperature extremes, resulting in less stress on vegetation and potential building heating and cooling savings. • Facilitation of the movement of wildlife and provision of game and non-game wildlife habitat, which improves hunting and observation opportunities. • Facilitation of the dispersal of plant seeds, which promotes continued biological diversity and healthy ecosystems. • Protection of plant and animal diversity, which promotes healthy and thriving ecosystems able to survive change and stress. • Protection of rare, threatened, and endangered species, thereby preserving a part of our natural heritage.

Because of the vital functions performed by these natural resource features, the intrusion of development into environmentally sensitive areas is not appropriate. The incompatibility of urban development within these natural resource features can also be evidenced by the widespread, serious, and costly problems that are often encountered when development occurs within ESAs. Examples of such problems include failing foundations of pavements and structures, wet basements, excessive operation of sump pumps, excessive clear-water infiltration into sanitary sewer systems, and poor drainage.

When natural resource features are located within areas of future growth, they are often directly or indirectly subject to degradation. This has led to the continual loss of these resources over time. Although many of the problems associated with development of ESAs are widely known and recognized, the pressures to develop these areas have become even greater as other more easily developable lands become less prevalent within and adjacent to growing communities.

28 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

With the creation of the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 121 (Areawide Water Quality Management Plans) in 1979, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources established the formal guidelines under which the water quality management planning process would be conducted in Wisconsin to implement the federal Clean Water Act. That process included the identification of water quality non- attainment areas (including Brown County) and the requirement that each non-attainment area develop a water quality management plan (under section 208 of the Clean Water Act), which includes the identification of “sewer service areas” within those areas and the identification of “major areas unsuitable for the installation of waste treatment systems because of physical or environmental constraints.” NR 121.05 also states, “Areas to be considered for exclusion from the sewer service area because of the potential for adverse impacts on the quality of the waters of the state from both point and nonpoint sources of pollution include, but are not limited to, wetlands, shorelands, floodways and floodplains, steep slopes, highly erodible soils, and other limiting soil types, groundwater recharge areas, and other such physical constraints.”16

Depending on the particular situation associated with each ESA, a property owner may petition for an amendment to slightly vary the ESA requirements. Amendments are rather rare and usually only involve small areas of ESA buffer rather than the actual ESA feature itself. Amendments must be specific to the property and demonstrate a hardship relative to sound development of the site. Depending on the size of the proposed ESA amendment, the request may be reviewed by Brown County staff or the Brown County Planning Commission Board of Directors and the WDNR to ensure it does not adversely affect surface water quality. Approved ESA amendments are subsequently recorded at the Brown County Register of Deeds Office so future owners of the property know where the new ESA line is. If you believe you may need an ESA amendment for development on a specific property, it is critically important to contact Brown County Planning Commission staff as early in the process as possible.

Due to the specifics of the section of NR 121 that pertain to ESAs, the state administrative rules apply only to publicly sewered development and related activities. However, in the interest of balancing the protection of surface water quality in urban and rural areas, the Brown County Planning Commission also identifies and enforces ESAs during its review and approval of land divisions subject to review under Chapter 21 of the Brown County Code within all villages and towns of Brown County, including parcels with private onsite wastewater treatment systems (POWTS).

As part of the Brown County review of land divisions under Chapter 21, potential ESAs are identified and then Brown County staff works with the surveyor and other applicable parties to identify the ESA boundary

16 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/121.pdf. 29 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 on the land division document (certified survey map or subdivision plat) which is subsequently recorded in the Brown County Register of Deeds Office. In this manner the current and future landowners are notified of the location of the ESAs on the property. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Brown County Planning Commission enforce ESA regulations during the review and approval of all public sanitary sewer extensions. The intent of county-wide regulation of the ESAs is to protect surface water- related natural resource features from the potentially adverse impacts sometimes associated with development.17

When the land was first developed or divided may have a major impact on the ESAs that are in effect. For instance, on land along the Fox River in downtown Green Bay or De Pere, which has been developed for over 200 years, it would simply not be practical to apply (for instance) a 75’ building setback from the Fox River, when there are buildings all along the river that are already much closer than 75’ and were built in accord with the rules in effect at that time. The general rule of thumb is the ESAs enforced are those that are or were in effect at the time of development. Those properties developed under a previous set of ESA rules or development that predated the ESA rules fall under the “grandfather clause” of the Brown County Sewage Plan and, if a land division was involved, Chapter 21 of the Brown County Code of Ordinances. If someone believes their property would qualify for the grandfather clause, they should contact the Brown County Planning Commission to confirm this before beginning any development activity, including cutting vegetation or grading/cutting/filling the ground.

Groundwater

As shown in Figure 8-9, groundwater begins as precipitation. This precipitation (rain or snow) falls upon the land, and some runs off into lakes, rivers, streams, or wetlands. Some evaporates back into the atmosphere, and plants take some up. Groundwater is that precipitation that soaks into the ground past plant roots and down into the subsurface soil and rock. A layer of soil or rock that is capable of storing groundwater and yielding it to wells is called an aquifer. There can be a number of aquifers within an area, one above another. The top of the aquifer closest to the ground’s surface is called the water table. It is the area below which all the openings between soil and rock particles are saturated with water.

Like surface water, groundwater moves from high areas to low areas. It discharges at those places where the water table intersects the land’s surface, such as in lakes, streams, and wetlands. Groundwater provides base flows for many of Brown County’s rivers and streams, and therefore, provides water necessary for aquatic plants, fish, crustaceans, and amphibians to survive during dry spells or droughts.

In addition to providing base flows for lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands, groundwater serves as the sole source of drinking water for approximately 43,000 primarily rural Brown County residents. The other approximately 205,000 primarily metropolitan area residents receive their drinking water from Lake Michigan.

Historically, groundwater levels have decreased as demand for drinking water increased, resulting in a “cone of depression” under first Green Bay and then under the metropolitan area. The cone size decreased dramatically following Green Bay’s switch from groundwater to Lake Michigan water as its drinking water source, however, as the suburban municipalities grew in population, the groundwater levels again dropped. With most suburban municipalities now utilizing Lake Michigan water either through the Green Bay Water Utility or Central Brown County Water Authority, groundwater levels are again rebounding back to their historic levels.

17 http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_c581ca2d560f/?department=e4cd9418781e&subdepartment=3810f83bcbd2.

30 Figure 8-9 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

With rebounding groundwater levels, quantity of groundwater is not necessarily as large a concern as it may have been 10 years ago. However, threats to groundwater remain, including naturally occurring problems with radium and arsenic. A major concern in areas of Brown County on top of the escarpment with karst (fractures in shallow bedrock) features, such as parts of the Towns of Glenmore, Morrison, Rockland, Wrightstown, Scott, and Green Bay, is bacteriological contamination from nutrient (manure) spreading and/or malfunctioning POWTS. The karst features create direct conduits for bacteria from these sources to reach the groundwater and enter homeowners’ wells. In addition to fractured bedrock, improperly sealed and abandoned wells also provide conduits to the County’s groundwater resource. Deep wells with proper casings and when wells are abandoned, properly sealing them, are the primary means to prevent creating or drinking contaminated groundwater.

The Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department administers a number of programs to help ensure agricultural activities do not negatively impact the groundwater. The Animal Waste Management Ordinance has been in effect since 1986 and requires a permit from the department for:

 A new animal waste storage facility.  Altering an existing animal waste storage facility.  Developing a new feedlot or altering an existing feedlot.  Abandonment of a waste storage facility.

Furthermore, the ordinance requires that:

 Landowners plan and document the availability of an acceptable acreage of cropland per animal unit for all future expansions of their livestock operations.  All agricultural operations have a nutrient management plan that meets U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Standard 590.  Agricultural producers who land apply animal waste in winter must obtain a winter spreading plan from the Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department.

Brown County Zoning administers Chapter 11 of the Brown County Code of Ordinances in order to protect groundwater from bacteriological contamination from POWTS. Brown County Zoning enforces the requirements associated with Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) administrative codes that include mandatory maintenance requirements for newer systems and “time of sale” inspection requirements for older systems. Under the “time of sale” inspections, POWTS systems are required to be inspected at the time of sale of the home. Furthermore, the State of Wisconsin has mandated that all POWTS must be on a maintenance program by the year 2019.

Protection of the County’s groundwater is critically important for the over 43,000 Brown County residents who depend on it for drinking water including both municipal systems and individual private wells. In order to protect this resource, the County should continue to enforce the agricultural and POWTS regulations. Furthermore, the WDNR recommends testing private wells for coliform bacteria at least once a year or immediately any time there is a change in how the water looks, tastes, or smells. Even if the groundwater looks, tastes, and smells fine, there is a chance it may have harmful bacteria or viruses. Considering the number of people that move to rural parts of Brown County from communities with public water supplies, Brown County should coordinate with its rural municipalities to provide new residents with information related to private well maintenance and testing, such as in the WDNR document “You and Your Well” which can be found on the WDNR website under the “Groundwater” link.

Woodlands

Prior to human-induced changes and development, it is generally accepted that Brown County consisted primarily of vast tracts of climax forests. These large undisturbed woodlands were believed to consist of mature hardwoods dominated by sugar maple, basswood, hemlock, and American beech. However, such woodlands rarely contained pure stands of timber but were more likely a mixture of tree species that grew 32 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 well together. Such common mixtures or groupings included beech, sugar maple, basswood, red oak, white oak, and black oak associations and beech, hemlock, sugar maple, yellow birch, white pine, and red pine associations. After more than 300 years of human-made changes, such as clearing, burning, and filling, many of these woodlands have disappeared, and very few, if any, virgin stands of timber remain. It is estimated that, prior to human settlement of this area, woodlands once occupied about 460 square miles, or about 86 percent of the County.18

Due to human activities, wooded lands within Brown County are now less extensive and of lesser quality. Those areas that still remain are typically less ecologically diverse and more disturbed than before. These areas typically consist of successional stages of woody growth or mature second growth rather than the climax forests of the past. In addition, the majority of these lands are grazed rather than left undisturbed, and the variety of species within typical existing woodlands is substantially less than would historically be found in a mature forest. A relatively recent trend is the establishment of new areas of trees and shrubs primarily attributable to the landscaping activities associated with urban development. However, these areas of often-exotic species of trees and shrubs are typically neither dense enough nor extensive enough to be considered woodlands.

The remaining relatively large areas of mature second growth woods can be found in the northern portion of the Towns of Scott and Green Bay, the Reforestation Camp area and west shore wetlands areas in the Village of Suamico, and areas along Duck Creek in the Village of Hobart and City of Green Bay. Numerous small woodlots are also scattered throughout the rural parts of Brown County. According to the 2014 land use inventory, woodlands encompassed 75 square miles, or about 14 percent of the County.

Although the woodlands that remain in the County are typically less ecologically diverse and more disturbed than the woodlands that existed prior to settlement of the County, valuable urban forests can and do occur and should continue to be encouraged. An urban forest includes tree-lined streets and trees in home landscapes, schoolyards, parks, stream banks, cemeteries, etc. The shrubs, flowers, and grasses often associated with these woods are also a part of the urban forest and play an important part in the community’s ecosystem, as well as in its identity and appearance.

Continued development is the key threat to the County’s remaining woodlands. Since these areas are prized as settings for residential subdivisions, they are often targeted for development. Intensive development, especially if improperly planned, could destroy the scenic and natural values of the woodland resource and could disrupt the blocks and corridors of vegetated land necessary to provide refuge and passage for wildlife. However, a well-planned and well-maintained urban forest could mitigate many of these adverse impacts and could reduce air pollution, slow stormwater runoff, and conserve energy.

Brown County’s urban tree canopy and rural woodlands perform vital natural functions in providing shade during hot weather, providing habitat for birds, insects, and small mammals, absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, reducing stormwater impacts, and serving as wind breaks to reduce soil erosion, among many others. In terms of benefits to homeowners, as cited by the National Arbor Day Foundation, healthy, mature trees add an average of 10 percent to a home’s value, and trees planted on the west side of a home save between 3 and 12 percent (depending on tree size) on heating and cooling costs.19

Expanding our urban tree canopy and rural woodlands would provide a multitude of benefits to property owners through increased value of property and to the environment. Brown County communities and Brown County should continue to actively work to increase the tree canopy in our urban and rural areas through programs such as the Green Bay Packers’ “First Downs for Trees” program and the Arbor Day Foundation’s “Tree City U.S.A.” program.

18 Based upon the 1976 extrapolation by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources of the information contained within the original land survey field notes of Brown County. 19 Arbor Day Foundation, Benefits of Trees: http://www.arborday.org/trees/benefits.cfm. Accessed 6/24/2014. 33 Figure 8-10 Woodlands Brown County Comprehensive Plan Update

Oconto County V. Pulaski

V. Suamico T. Pittsfield Bay of Green Bay Shawano County

T. Green Bay V. Howard T. Scott

C. Green Bay

C. Green Bay

T. Humboldt V. Hobart

V. Allouez V. Bellevue V. Ashwaubenon C. De Pere T. Eaton Kewaunee County

Outagamie County T. Ledgeview

T. Lawrence T. New Denmark T. Rockland T. Glenmore

V. Denmark

T. Wrightstown V. Wrightstown Manitowoc County

Wisconsin

T. Morrison

T. Holland

Calumet County

*Does not include wooded public parks or other public natural areas. Municipal Districts They are accounted for in parks and recreation facilities. Ü Woodlands* 00.475 0.95 1.9 2.85 3.8 Miles Source: Brown County Planning and Land Services, 8/18/2014 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife habitat, as well as the other natural resources mentioned in this chapter, is part of Brown County’s biodiversity. Biodiversity (or biological diversity) is the full spectrum and inter-relationships of all plants and animals (including humans), their composition and distribution, and the landscapes and functions they assume. Biodiversity provides a way of thinking that takes into account the landscape, species, communities, and systems that comprise the environment and allows us to take an integrated approach to the management of our natural surroundings. This approach is critical because humans depend on nature and a healthy environment, and human actions have a profound impact upon the natural environment. Thus, it is a continuing challenge to balance the needs of a growing human population with maintaining a diverse, productive, and resilient natural environment.

Since much of the County is either developed or actively farmed, existing wildlife habitat is generally found along or near the County’s rivers, streams, and wetlands, creating linear environmental corridors for wildlife habitat and passage. Although the corridors are generally associated with rivers, streams, and wetlands, there may also be adjacent areas of upland wildlife habitat consisting of mature hardwoods or prairie. The wildlife habitat corridors with a mixture of habitats create the greatest opportunities for diverse flora and fauna.

As one example of Brown County working to improve wildlife habitat, the Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department has been working in concert with local landowners, public agencies, and non-profit groups to improve spawning habitat for northern pike in streams and wetlands within the Suamico River and Little Suamico River watersheds. The goals of the project include:

 Establish vegetated riparian buffers along intermittent and perennial streams that are considered potential spawning areas for northern pike.  Establish/restore/protect wetlands which are contiguous to northern pike spawning routes.  Reduce sediments, nutrients, and pesticides entering the stream network from construction and agriculture production areas to protect spawning habitat and improve water quality in the bay.  Improve access to upstream spawning and rearing habitat sites for adult northern pike.  Increase public awareness of the extremely high importance of maintaining a balanced predator species population in the bay to support recreational fishing opportunities and help control the spread of unwanted invasive fish species.

In addition to water feature based linear corridors, fencerows along the boundaries of agricultural fields provides critical habitat for pheasant, whitetail deer, small mammals, raptors, and songbirds. As agricultural practices increase in scale, many smaller farm fields are being combined into much larger fields to accommodate the increased size of agricultural equipment and efficiencies associated with modern agricultural practices, which is reducing the amount of fencerow habitat.

As previously noted, waterway corridors, wetlands, contiguous upland areas, and fencerows provide critical wildlife habitat in the rural parts of Brown County. Projects that bring in multiple partners, such as the northern pike habitat restoration effort, should be encouraged by Brown County as a small, but vital step in improving wildlife habitat. As local communities update their local comprehensive plans, there should be continued recognition of the importance of wildlife habitat to the rural character of these communities as

35 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 well as to the biodiversity of the County as a whole.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Federal and state laws protect endangered and threatened species. Activities that impact state- or federally-listed animals on public or private lands and plants on public lands are prohibited under the related state and federal laws. This protection is usually accomplished during the federal and state permit review process, but it is ultimately the responsibility of a project proponent and property owner to ensure that they are not in violation of the endangered species laws.

Protection of such species is a valuable and vital component of sustaining biodiversity. An endangered species is one whose continued existence is in jeopardy and may become extinct. A threatened species is one that is likely, within the foreseeable future, to become endangered. A special concern species is one about which some problem of abundance or distribution is suspected but not yet proven. The main purpose of the special concern category is to focus attention on certain species before they become endangered or threatened. Both levels of government prepare their own separate lists of such plant and animal species but do so working in cooperation with one another, as well as with various other organizations and universities. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Endangered Resources monitors endangered, threatened, and special concern species and maintains the state’s Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI). This program maintains data on the locations and status of rare species in Wisconsin. Because some species are very sensitive, their actual locations are kept vague in order to protect them. Data for these species is only available at the town-range level by county. The WDNR Bureau of Endangered Species maintains the list and regularly provides updates. The full listing for Brown County may be found at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/NHI/Data.asp.

In addition to the plant and animal species listed in the NHI, Brown County contains important examples of the following natural community types. Descriptions of the natural communities located in Brown County are provided from the WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources.20 Although communities are not legally protected, they are unique components of Wisconsin’s landscape and may provide critical habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species. The Niagara Escarpment is a primary example of a very prominent, yet unique, ecosystem that harbors several plant and animal species that are found nowhere else in the County.

Northern Mesic Forest - This open wetland community is dominated by sedges and grasses. There are several common subtypes: Tussock meadows, dominated by tussock sedge (Carex stricta) and Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostiscanadensis); Broad-leaved sedge meadows, dominated by the robust sedges (Carex lacustris and/or C.utriculata); and Wire-leaved sedge meadows, dominated by such species as woolly sedge (Carex lasiocarpa) and few-seeded sedge (C. oligosperma). Frequent associates include marsh bluegrass (Poa palustris), manna grasses (Glyceria spp.), panicled aster (Aster lanceolatus), joy-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum), and the bulrushes (Scirpus atrovirens and S. cyperinus).

Southern Dry-mesic Forest - Red oak (Quercus rubra) is a common dominant tree of this upland forest community type. White oak (Q. alba), basswood (Tilia americana), sugar and red maples (Acer saccharum and A. rubrum), and white ash (Fraxinus americana) are also important. The herbaceous understory flora is diverse and includes many species listed under Southern Dry Forest plus jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), enchanter's-nightshade (Circaea lutetiana), large-flowered bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora), interrupted fern (Osmunda claytoniana), Lady Fern (Athyrium Filix-femina), tick-trefoils (Desmodium glutinosum and D. nudiflorum), and hog peanut (Amphicarpa bracteata). To the detriment of the oaks, mesophytic tree species are becoming increasingly important under current management practices and fire suppression policies.

20 Recognized Natural Communities – Working Document, Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Bureau of Endangered Resources: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/documents/communities.pdf. 36 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Northern Dry-mesic Forest - In this forest community, mature stands are dominated by white and red pines (Pinus strobus and P. resinosa), sometimes mixed with red oak (Quercus rubra) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Common understory shrubs are hazelnuts (Corylus spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium and V. myrtilloides), wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens), partridge- berry (Mitchella repens); among the dominant herbs are wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), and cow-wheat (Melampyrum lineare). Stands usually occur on sandy loams, sands or sometimes rocky soils.

Northern Wet Forest - These weakly minerotrophic conifer swamps, located in the north, are dominated by black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina). Jack pine (Pinus banksiana) may be a significant canopy component in certain parts of the range of this community complex. Understories are composed mostly of sphagnum (Sphagnum spp.) mosses and ericaceous shrubs such as leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata), Labrador-tea (Ledum groenlandicum), and small cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) and sedges such as (Carex trisperma and C paupercula). The Natural Heritage Inventory has split out two entities, identified (but not strictly defined) by the two dominant species (see Black Spruce Swamp and Tamarack Swamp).

Shrub-Carr - This wetland community is dominated by tall shrubs such as red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), meadowsweet (Spiraea alba), and various willows (Salix discolor, S. bebbiana, and S. gracilis). Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) is often very common. Associates are similar to those found in Alder Thickets and tussock-type Sedge Meadows. This type is common and widespread in southern Wisconsin but also occurs in the north.

Emergent Marsh - These open, marsh, lake, riverine and estuarine communities with permanent standing water are dominated by robust emergent macrophytes, in pure stands of single species or in various mixtures. Dominants include cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes (particularly Scirpus acutus, S. fluviatilis, and S. validus), bur-reeds (Sparganium spp.), giant reed (Phragmites australis), pickerel-weed (Pontederia cordata), water-plantains (Alisma spp.), arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.), and the larger species of spikerush such as (Eleocharis smallii).

Great Lakes Beach - This beach community usually occurs in association with active dune systems. The beaches of the Great Lakes are extremely dynamic features, strongly influenced by water level changes and storm events. They support a suite of very specialized organisms, although unprotected shorelines may be entirely unvegetated. The plant species found in this community include (along Lake Michigan) seaside spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia) and American sea-rocket (Cakile edentula).

Alvar - This rare community consists of areas of thin discontinuous soil overlying horizontal beds of limestone or dolomite in the vicinity of Great Lakes shorelines. They are characterized by relatively low tree cover and a distinctive biota which includes elements of rock pavement, prairie, savanna and boreal forest communities. Among these are regional endemics, some very rare. This community type is much more common and better developed in Michigan and Ontario than in Wisconsin. Small coniferous and deciduous trees (cedar, fir, pine, oak, aspen, birch) are scattered among an assemblage of species that can include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indian-grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum), as well as shoreline plants such as silverweed (Potentilla

37 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 anserina) and dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris).

Southern Sedge Meadow - Widespread in southern Wisconsin, this open wetland community is most typically dominated by tussock sedge (Carex stricta) and Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis). Common associates are waterhorehound (Lycopus uniflorus), panicled aster (Aster simplex), blue flag (Iris virginica), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), spotted joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum), broad- leaved cat-tail (Typha latifolia), and swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata). Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) may be dominant in grazed and/or ditched stands. Ditched stands can succeed quickly to Shrub-Carr.

Great Lakes Ridge and Swale - This is a complex of semi- to fully-stabilized, often forested beach / dune ridges alternating with wet open to forested swales, found on the shores of the Great Lakes but best- developed along Lake Michigan. Both parallel the coast and offer exceptionally complex and diverse habitats for wetland, upland, and Great Lakes shoreline plants. Ridges may support assemblages similar to boreal, northern mesic, or northern dry-mesic forests. Water depth is a controlling factor in the swales, and the vegetation may run the gamut from open (emergent marsh, fen, or sedge meadow), shrub (bog birch, alder), or forested wetlands (often white cedar, black ash are prominent in these).

Moist Cliff - This "micro-community" occurs on shaded (by trees or the cliff itself because of aspect), moist to seeping mossy, vertical exposures of various rock types, most commonly sandstone and dolomite. Common species are columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), the fragile ferns (Cystopteris bulbifera and C. fragilis), wood ferns (Dryopteris spp.), rattlesnake-root (Prenanthes alba), and wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis). The rare flora of these cliffs vary markedly in different parts of the state; Driftless Area cliffs might have northern monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense); those on Lake Superior, butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris); or those in Door County, green spleenwort (Asplenium viride).

Northern Wet-Mesic Forest - This forested minerotrophic wetland is dominated by white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), and occurs on rich, neutral to alkaline substrates. Balsam fir (Abies balsamea), black ash (Fraxinus nigra), and spruces (Picea glauca and P. mariana) are among the many potential canopy associates. The understory is rich in sedges (such as Carex disperma and C. trisperma), orchids (e.g., Platanthera obtusata and Listera cordata), and wildflowers such as goldthread (Coptis trifolia), fringed polygala (Polygala pauciflora), and naked miterwort (Mitella nuda), and trailing sub-shrubs such as twinflower (Linnaea borealis) and creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula). A number of rare plants occur more frequently in the cedar swamps than in any other habitat.

Rare species and natural communities are critical components of Brown County’s biodiversity, and protecting these resources is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the County’s ecology. The WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources should be contacted for a review of proposed development activities when there is the potential for a negative effect on NHI listed species or natural communities. This is particularly the case when developing in areas that could potentially impact the Dwarf Lake Iris (Iris lacustris), which is the only federally listed species known to occur within Brown County.

The informational “Wisconsin Land Legacy Report” by the WDNR identified the Colonial Waterbird Nesting Islands (Cat Islands, Long Tail Point, Little Tail Point), Duck Creek and Burma Swamp, Niagara Escarpment, Point au Sable, Red Banks Alvar, Suamico River, Twin River, and the west shore wetlands of the Bay of Green Bay as among the most important natural resource features in the state. Furthermore, the Red Banks Alvar and the Holland Red Maple Swamp are the only state designated natural areas in Brown County. State natural areas are Wisconsin’s best remaining examples of native natural communities, and they receive the state’s highest efforts of protection and acquisition.

Scenic Resources and Topography

As shown in Figure 8-11, the topography of Brown County has been greatly modified by glacial action and today is generally characterized by gently rolling moraines. The western two-thirds of the County is associated with the roughly 4-mile-wide Fox River Valley, a continuation of the same depression forming the 38 Figure 8-11 Topography Brown County Comprehensive Plan Update

Oconto County V. Pulaski

V. Suamico T. Pittsfield Bay of

Shawano County Green Bay

T. Green Bay V. Howard T. Scott

C. Green Bay

C. Green Bay

T. Humboldt V. Hobart

V. Allouez V. Bellevue V. Ashwaubenon C. De Pere T. Eaton Kewaunee County Outagamie County T. Ledgeview

T. Lawrence T. New Denmark T. Rockland T. Glenmore

V. Denmark

T. Wrightstown V. Wrightstown Manitowoc County

Wisconsin T. Morrison

T. Holland

Calumet County

Elevation (Feet above sea level) Municipal Districts High : 1,020.01 Generalized Niagara Escarpment Ü Ledge Face 00.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Source: Brown County Planning and Land Services, 8/15/2014 Low : 548.5 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Bay of Green Bay. This area slopes gently northeastward from Lake Winnebago in east central Wisconsin, drains to the bay, and is generally level to gently rolling. This lowland area contains many glacial landforms, including eskers, moraines, and remnants of extinct glacial lakes. During glacial times, the flat marshy land west and south of the bay had been covered by the bay. Most streams in the area flow northeastward and parallel to the escarpment to the bay. Most streams also possess shallow channels, except in a few instances where the streams have cut through softer underlying glacial landforms, such as the Fox River in Wrightstown.

Due to its location between two lobes of the last glacier to advance through Wisconsin, the southeastern portion of the County is extremely hilly and has many poorly drained depressions. This area, which extends into southeastern Wisconsin, is the beginning of the Kettle Moraine area of the State.

Land relief within the County ranges from approximately 600 feet above sea level to approximately 1,000 feet above sea level. The low point in the County, at an elevation of about 580 feet, is located in the City of Green Bay where the Fox River enters the bay. The highest point in the County is located in the Town of Holland, southeast of the unincorporated community of Greenleaf, at an elevation of about 1,020 feet.

The most dominant topographical feature in Brown County is the Niagara Escarpment, which rises relatively abruptly above the valley floor. This escarpment is the exposed edge of a ridge with a steep face on the generally west and north side and a gentle slope on the east and south sides. The headwaters of a number of streams that drain eastward to Lake Michigan are located within this area. However, gaps in the Niagara Escarpment allow two streams—Baird Creek and Bower Creek—to flow westward to the Bay of Green Bay. Most portions of the rocky Niagara Escarpment ledge face in Brown County face northwest and vary in height from 5 feet to upwards of 200 feet.

The “ledge,” as it is locally known, was formed by the exposure of a layer of eastward or southeastward tilting rocks that are older, harder, and more resistant to weathering and erosion than the underlying rocks. Over time, the underlying rocks have been eroded away, leaving the edge of the more resistant rocks exposed. The steep, straight cliff faces have been accentuated by the scouring action of glaciers. The Niagara Escarpment extends in a southwest-northeast direction through the eastern portion of Brown County (approximately five miles east of and parallel to the Fox River) until it nears the northeast side of the City of Green Bay where it is located adjacent to the bay. The Niagara Escarpment continues southwest into central Wisconsin and to the northeast through Door County, Upper Michigan, Canada, and back into the United States in Upstate New York. The Door County Peninsula and Niagara Falls are two exceptional and well-known features located along this escarpment.

The Niagara Escarpment creates a unique microclimate that is well-suited to the production of grapes for viniculture (the science, production, and study of grapes for winemaking). In 2012, the Wisconsin Ledge American Viticultural Area (AVA) encompassing approximately 3,800 square miles of east-central Wisconsin from the tip of Door County, south through Ozaukee County, west through Dodge County, and then north along the west shore of Lake Winnebago including Winnebago County and the Fox Valley. A designated AVA allows vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and allow consumers to identify the area from which a wine comes from that they may purchase. The designation provides national recognition to

40 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 the legitimacy and quality of the wines produced from the area.

The topography of the County has a significant impact on its natural and scenic resources, as well as on stormwater management and erosion control. While highly subjective, scenic beauty is also an important element of many successful communities. Surveys have shown that most people enjoy open spaces and vistas of unspoiled nature, while others enjoy views of more urban development and the contrasts that they can provide. To some, the most beautiful scenic resources are views of blue skies, green hills, shorelines, and woodlands, while others prefer park or golf course settings and still others prefer pastoral settings. One of the most often cited scenic views in the County is that of the bay and the City of Green Bay viewed from the Niagara Escarpment, which incorporates elements of both urban and natural settings.

The areas of varying topography within the County can be scenic resources of great value to the community. The shoreline of the Fox River is a significant scenic resource. However, public access is very limited once one is south of the City of De Pere and there are no vantage points for the public to view the topography. The same generally applies to the southern portions of the Niagara Escarpment.

Seeking ways to obtain access to and maintain these scenic characteristics of the community should be considered because of the contrast they offer from the surrounding landscape and the vistas they provide. As the County continues to develop, the County and local communities should continue to extend parkways along these features and the major waterways to preserve their scenic qualities, as well as to improve their water quality. Opportunities are more limited along the Fox and East Rivers and other creeks and streams within the metropolitan area due to development that is already in place. However, as redevelopment opportunities arise or further development occurs within and outside the metropolitan area, providing additional public access to these ridgelines and shorelines would provide additional places for residents and visitors to enjoy the views the County has to offer.

For these reasons, the recommendations of the Brown County Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Plan regarding the establishment of parkways are included and incorporated into this comprehensive plan and should also be considered in local comprehensive and park plans.

Additionally, many of the areas within Brown County that provide such valuable scenic views are located along the Niagara Escarpment, which, in turn, are associated with karst features. Karst features consist of cracked and fractured bedrock, such as limestone, that is close to the surface. This bedrock is easily dissolved by water, and its cracks and layers allow water and pollutants to easily reach the groundwater. Sinkholes, shallow soils, sinking streams, and springs are commonly found in such areas. These features are located adjacent to the escarpment and more extensively in the Towns of Green Bay and Scott.

Because of the fragility of these features and their susceptibility to groundwater contamination, development within them should be discouraged. At a minimum, setbacks from these features should be considered for barnyards, manure storage areas, chemical and manure spreading, septic systems, and roads and other paved areas. It is recommended that a study of the escarpment and its associated karst features within Brown County, their location, their susceptibility to groundwater contamination, their value as scenic areas and parkways, their potential for tourism, their potential for harboring rare plant and animal species, their relationship to similar efforts in adjacent counties, and their appropriateness for development be undertaken. This study should be a cooperative undertaking by the WDNR, the County, and the affected local units of government.

Mineral Resources

While there are currently no active metallic mines in Wisconsin, nonmetallic mining is a widespread activity in Wisconsin, as well as in Brown County. In Wisconsin, there are an estimated 2,000 mines that provide aggregate for construction; sand, gravel, and crushed stone for road building, and limestone for agricultural lime and manufacturing applications. Recently the western and central parts of the state have experienced strong growth in silica sand quarries for use in the hydraulic fracking process for shale oil production. In

41 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Brown County, there are a number of active quarries that mine dolomite, sandstone, limestone, or crushed stone (sand or gravel). The Niagara Escarpment, which extends through Brown County, contains some of the state’s highest quality aggregate materials. Most commonly mined from the portion of the escarpment in Brown County is dimension limestone that is used primarily for landscaping.

The State of Wisconsin first passed a nonmetallic mining law in 1994. The law requires that all nonmetallic mining operations be registered. To be registered, the nonmetallic mineral deposit must be delineated by a professional geologist or registered engineer and certified to be economically viable. Additionally, if the land is zoned, the existing zoning at the time of registration must have allowed mining as a permitted use or as a conditional use. The state law further specifies that the registration lasts for 10 years and could be renewed for an additional 10 years. However, after 20 years, the full registration process must be undertaken once again. In addition, the law states that local zoning officials can deny the mining only if they can prove that the mineral deposit is not marketable or that the zoning at the time of the registration prohibits mining.

Wisconsin passed a second nonmetallic mining law in 2000, the Wisconsin State Statute Section 295.13(1) and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 135. The state statute and administrative code require that all counties in the state adopt an ordinance in 2001 (consistent with the model ordinance prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) to establish a reclamation program capable of ensuring compliance with uniform state reclamation standards. The administrative code also allows cities, villages, and towns to adopt such an ordinance and administer the program within their own jurisdiction at any time. However, the administrative code further states that the county ordinance will apply to every city, village, or town within the county until such time as the city, village, or town adopts and administers an ordinance itself.

Brown County implements the requirements of the state administrative code through Chapter 14 – Non- Metallic Mining Reclamation Ordinance of the Brown County Code of Ordinances. The ordinance was first adopted in 2000 with enforcement commencing in 2001. The ordinance sets standards for reclamation planning, identification of the final land use after reclamation, saving, storing, and reuse of topsoil, erosion control, revegetation, and how the mining operation should be conducted to promote a sound final reclamation plan. The program also involves a permit system, financial assurances (bonds, etc. to cover the cost of reclamation), WDNR oversight of the County and local programs to ensure implementation, and statewide uniform standards.

Brown County administers this program within all local communities except the Village of Hobart and the Town of Lawrence, which administer the ordinance themselves. Within the remaining 22 Brown County communities, there are currently 16 permitted pits and quarries (although others may exist that are covered by other regulations).

Because of the presence of this high quality aggregate and dimension stone resource in Brown County and because of the potential for both significant positive economic impacts and negative environmental and land use impacts, applicable local ordinances should attempt to balance these issues. Local municipalities, specifically those along the Niagara Escarpment, must take into account the fragile ecosystem and potentially state or federally listed endangered resources along the ledge face when reviewing applications for non-metallic mining operations. It is also important for the local units of government to keep in mind that new residential uses are not typically compatible with active quarrying operations due to the blasting, noise, dust, and truck traffic associated with the activity. Therefore, local municipalities should use caution when reviewing proposed new residential developments near active quarries.

Cultural Resources

Our historic and archeological cultural resources provide a window into our past; where we have been, how we got here, and what lessons we can learn to apply to current and future decisions. In terms of historic buildings, they help to provide a distinct “sense of place” to our communities because of the architecture, materials, and craftsmanship that draw people to these buildings, even though they may have been built 42 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 over 150 years ago. Archeological resources help to explain how the area was home to thousands of Native Americans before European settlement. Put together, archeology and historic preservation provide the foundation for our future.

Historic Buildings and Districts

As one of the oldest counties in Wisconsin, Brown County has a number of buildings and sites that are significant to the culture of the county, region, and state. The identification and preservation of these unique and irreplaceable resources are an important part of the County’s, as well as the local communities’, quality of life.

Figure 8-12 identifies the districts and buildings in the County that are listed on the state and national registers of historic places.

Figure 8-12: Districts and Buildings Listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places Period(s) of Certification Historic Name Address Community Significance Date Astor Historic District WI 57 C. of Green Bay 1835-1955 2/27/1980 Baird Law Office 2640 S. Webster Ave. C. of Green Bay 1825-1874 10/15/1970 Broadway—Dousman Broadway, Dousman St., C. of Green Bay 1873-1947 3/12/1999 Historic District Chestnut St. Broadway—Walnut Historic Broadway, Pearl St., C. of Green Bay 1879-1947 7/8/1999 District Walnut St. BrownDistrict County Courthouse 100 S. Jefferson St. C. of Green Bay 1900-1924 1/1/1976

Chicago and North Western 202 Dousman St. C. of Green Bay 1875-1949 12/30/1999 Railway Passenger Depot Christ Episcopal Church 425 Cherry St. C. of Green Bay 1900-1957 10/9/2012 Complex Cotton House 2640 S. Webster Ave. C. of Green Bay 1825-1849 4/28/1970 De Pere Lock and Dam Fox River and C. of De Pere 1930-1941 12/7/1993 Historic District St. James St. De Pere Public Library 380 Main Ave. C. of De Pere 1937-1952 10/4/2002 Fisk, Joel S. House 123 N. Oakland Ave. C. of Green Bay 1850-1949 8/11/1978 Fort Howard Hospital 2640 S. Webster Ave. V. of Allouez 7/22/1979 Fort Howard Officer’s 2640 S. Webster Ave. V. of Allouez 1800-1874 7/22/1979 Quarters Fort Howard Ward Bldg 2640 S. Webster Ave. V. of Allouez 1800-1874 7/22/1979 Fox Theatre 117 S. Washington St. C. of Green Bay 1800-1874 3/24/2000 Grassy Island Range Lights 100 Bay Beach Rd. C. of Green Bay 1872 1/12/2005 Green Bay Harbor Entrance 3.1 miles northwest of T. of Scott 1935-1957 3/28/2008 Light Point Comfort Gretzinger, Otto and Hilda 922 N. Broadway C. of De Pere 1915 10/13/2011 House Hazelwood 1008 S. Monroe Ave. C. of Green Bay 1837-1861 4/28/1970 Henry House 1794 Riverside Dr. V. of Suamico 1850-1874 1/31/1980 Holy Cross Church and 3001 Bay Settlement Rd. C. of Green Bay 1862-1932 6/28/2001 Convent Hotel Northland 304 N. Adams St. C. of Green Bay 1924-2963 10/30/2013

Kellogg Public Library and 125 S. Jefferson St. C. of Green Bay 1900-1949 6/9/1981 Neville Public Museum C.A. Lawton Co. 233 N. Broadway C. of De Pere 1875-1899 1/30/1992 1900-1924 1925-1949 Little Kaukauna Lock and Fox River at Mill Rd. T. of Lawrence/ 1927-1941 12/7/1993 Dam Historic District T. Rockland Main Avenue Historic District 301-377 (odd only) Main C. of De Pere 1835-1950 2/3/2010 Ave. Main Hall (St. Norbert College) Third St. and College C. of De Pere 1900-1924 10/28/1988 Ave. 1925-1949

43 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Period(s) of Certification Historic Name Address Community Significance Date Milwaukee Road Passenger 400 S. Washington St. C. of Green Bay 1875-1949 8/16/1996 Depot Mueller-Wright House Washington and V. of Wrightstown 1850-1874 3/29/1978 Mueller St. Nichols, John T. and Margaret, 128 Taft Ave. V. of Allouez 1951 9/1/2005 House

North Broadway Street Broadway, Ridgeway C. of De Pere 1836-1923 9/8/1983 Historic District Blvd., Morris, Fulton, Franklin, Cass, Front, and Wisconsin Streets North Michigan Street – North Ridgeway, N. Wisconsin, C. of De Pere 1867-1954 7/19/2007 Superior Street Historic N. Huron, and George St. District

Oakland—Dousman Dousman, Oakland, C. of Green Bay 1862-1930 4/27/1988 Historic District Shawano, Antoinette and Francis St. Randall Avenue Historic Ridgeway, Oakdale, and C. of De Pere 1908-1955 4/24/2007 District Glenwood Ave.

Rockwood Lodge Barn and 5632 Sturgeon Bay Rd. T. of Green Bay 1938 5/5/2004 Pigsty

Rioux, Angeline Champeau 2183 Glendale Ave. V. of Howard 1875-1949 10/28/1994 House Steckart and Falck Double 112-118 North Broadway C. of De Pere 1888 10/20/2011 Block Smith, J.B., House and 5121 Gravel Pit Rd. T. Green Bay 1885 5/12/2004 Granary South Broadway Historic 101-129 (odd only) C. of De Pere 1882-1888 1/21/2010 District South Broadway Tank Cottage 2640 S. Webster Ave. V. of Allouez 1750-1899 4/28/1970 Union House Hotel 200 N. Broadway C. of De Pere 1883-1922 11/26/2003 Wisconsin State Reformatory Riverside Dr. and V. of Allouez 1898-1939 5/3/1990 STH 172 Source: State of Wisconsin Historical Society – Wisconsin National Register and State Register database, 2014. www.wisconsinhistory.org.

In addition to those properties already listed on the state and national registers of historic places, the Wisconsin Historical Society also maintains the Wisconsin Architecture and History Inventory (AHI). The AHI is a database of buildings, structures, and objects by community that illustrates Wisconsin’s unique history. Properties that are listed within the AHI may or may not still exist and are not conferred any special status or regulations. However, the AHI provides a good idea of additional properties that could be considered for protection and listing on the state and national registers of historic places. According to the AHI, the County contains over 6,000 architecturally or historically significant properties that have been surveyed, primarily in the Cities of De Pere and Green Bay

44 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 and the Villages of Allouez, Ashwaubenon, Denmark, Howard, Pulaski, and Wrightstown. The entire listing of properties and detailed records may be viewed at http://www.wisconsinhistory.org.

Heritage Hill State Park, located in the Village of Allouez, contains six of the buildings that are listed on the state and national register of historic places, and a number of other buildings on these grounds may also be eligible for listing (according to the AHI). Heritage Hill State Park is a living history museum devoted to the preservation of buildings and artifacts and the interpretation of northeastern Wisconsin’s history and people. Numerous interactive educational opportunities are provided at this site.

Historic preservation protects important aspects of the past and provides a sense of continuity and place. It also fosters community pride and helps establish community identity. Successful comprehensive preservation efforts can promote increased tourism and increased reinvestment into older neighborhoods, benefits which have already occurred in places like the Cities of De Pere and Green Bay because of their efforts in this regard.

Archeological Preservation

The purpose of and benefits associated with archeological preservation are similar to that of historic preservation. Such preservation protects important aspects of the past, provides a sense of continuity and place, and fosters community pride and identity. Brown County has over 400 archeological sites listed in the Archeological Site Inventory at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison. These 400-plus sites by no means represent the total number of sites but reflect the sites that have been discovered accidentally through construction or plowing or intentionally by collectors or archeological surveys undertaken as part of a publicly funded project. Some of these archeological sites have been destroyed by construction or plowing, and most of these sites are disturbed in some way. Parts of some of these sites may survive in backyards in the City of Green Bay or under the plow-zone in a field in the Town of Scott.

An archeological site may be defined as any place where there is evidence of past human activity. Site types in Brown County range from isolated finds of a chert spear or copper harpoon, to rock shelter sites, to shipwrecks, to Euro-American homesteads, to large villages occupied by the Oneota archeological culture.

A glance at a map of Wisconsin with all of the archeological sites indicated shows that in Brown County sites cluster along waterways and bay shores. Concentrations of archeological sites are apparent along the east shore of the Bay of Green Bay, especially between Red Banks and Point au Sable, and along the Suamico River, especially near its mouth. Early artifact collectors considered these two areas the most productive for artifacts in the County. Many sites are located along the Fox River, especially between De Pere and the mouth of the river. Archeological sites also cluster on the shore of the bay near river mouths – the Fox, the Suamico, and Duck Creek. Some of these sites are under water during high water levels in the bay but are on dry land during low water levels. The site cluster along the east shore of the bay has already been noted, with the Point au Sable to Red Banks area of special interest, but large and important sites are found along the bay to the Kewaunee County line. Many of the sites in the Town of Scott and the Town of Green Bay were discovered by the archeological survey conducted as part of the STH 57 expansion project.

While the location of archeological sites is kept confidential, it can be noted that there are approximately 400 known sites within Brown County, as indicated in Figure 8-13.

After the European arrival in northeast Wisconsin, the Bay of Green Bay and the Fox River became the hub of French fur trading and missionary concerns. Important sites, such as the early missions and the early forts, are known to exist in Brown County but are largely uninvestigated. Sites of the Metis Society in which French and Native Americans met and married are also located in Brown County, many of them underneath downtown Green Bay. In recent years, it has been recognized that archeological investigation of European homesteads and early industrial sites can also contribute to our understanding of the history of the area. These kinds of sites, as well as historic shipwreck sites, have not attracted the attention paid to Native American sites but are nevertheless an important resource for future investigation.

45 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

Three shipwreck sites are listed for Brown County: two in the Fox River and one in the waters of the Bay of Green Bay. These sites are not included in the breakdown in Figure 8-13. The Villages of Denmark, Wrightstown, and Pulaski have not been separated from their surrounding towns.

Figure 8-13: Number of Known Archeological Sites in Brown County by Community

Town of Scott 93 City of Green Bay 67 Village of Suamico 67 Village of Howard 31 Village of Hobart 19 Town of Lawrence 16 Town of Green Bay 15 Village of Allouez 14 Village of Ashwaubenon 13 Town of Ledgeview 10 Town of Wrightstown 10 City of De Pere 8 Village of Bellevue 7 Town of Pittsfield 7 Town of Humboldt 5 Town of Rockland 5 Town of New Denmark 5 Town of Holland 3 Town of Morrison 2 Town of Glenmore 2 Town of Eaton 1

Source: Neville Public Museum.

Archeological sites are windows to the past. They provide information and insight as to the culture of the previous residents of Brown County. Current state law gives protection to all human burial sites. There are also programs and restrictions relating to other archeological sites. Developing these sites before they can be catalogued and studied is the major threat to this resource.

Brown County should capitalize on the value of these resources, perhaps through encouraging local communities to include these sites within public neighborhood parks and educating citizens about pre- European settlement life in the northeastern Wisconsin region. The County should work with the Wisconsin Historical Society and the Neville Public Museum to help identify these sites. Processes for dealing with protection of these sites during new development should then be established, particularly for burial sites.

Historic preservation of cultural resources is recognition and protection of communities, areas, structures, sites, and objects having historic, archeological, architectural, social, or cultural significance. It is not blind protection of everything old. It is protection and preservation done sensitively to the needs, ability, and desires of the community. It reflects the desire to save reminders of the past, not to recreate them. When it is done well, it is done in such a fashion that it fits seamlessly with the existing surroundings and environment.

Because of this importance, it is recommended that the County assist local communities in their efforts in identifying and preserving the elements of their community they wish to preserve and/or emulate and incorporating such findings in the plans and efforts of the individual communities. It is recommended that the County encourage the communities to undertake a cultural resource survey to accomplish this goal. It is also recommended that the County educate local communities of the value and importance of programs, such as the Certified Local Government (CLG) program by the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer 46 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14 and Wisconsin’s Main Street Program, which has been successfully utilized by De Pere and Green Bay to reinvigorate their downtowns.

Community Identity and Design

Brown County’s cultural landmarks (especially its public gathering places, its older and more architecturally- interesting buildings, signage, parks, and landscaping) contribute significantly to the County’s identity. Places of worship, libraries, government buildings, and similar institutions are what often spring to mind when one thinks of a community. Within Brown County, these sites serve as cultural landmarks due to their central location, architectural scale and design, and status as a focal point for residents during much of the history of the community. Brown County has undertaken many efforts to capitalize upon its own distinctive history, and the Neville Public Museum has been very active in the identification and preservation of historic and archeological resources in the County.

It is important to recognize and promote the arts and cultural facilities in Brown County. These facilities, institutions, and artists contribute not only to community identity and design but also to the overall quality of life. They serve as a catalyst for economic development, and they serve to attract and retain creative businesses and individuals. Just a few examples of these facilities and events in Brown County include the Weidner Center, Meyer Theater, Lambeau Field, Oneida Nation Museum, Resch Center, The CityDeck, Brown County Fair, Art Street, Pulaski Polka Days, and numerous other local festivals.

Because of the success of past local efforts, the importance of community identity and community design to the County’s quality of life, its role in fostering community pride, and its value in attracting and retaining industry, business, and residents, it is recommended that not only should these efforts be continued, they should be expanded upon. More specifically:

 The suggestions and recommendations of local historic, cultural, and architectural preservation plans should be supported.

 Brown County’s coastal areas create opportunities for direct interaction between the surface water resource, residents, and visitors, thereby building appreciation for the importance of these waterfront areas. Brown County’s bay shore and Fox River waterfront areas should serve as focal points for redevelopment in urban areas and conservation in rural areas.

 Nonprofit groups, neighborhood associations, business associations, etc. should be utilized to assist the County and the local communities in the establishment of design, architectural, building, and landscaping criteria to revitalize, beautify, and restore the character of the County’s communities, neighborhoods, districts, etc.

 Planting street trees should be continued as a means of beautifying the built environment, enhancing neighborhood character, and absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In the older residential neighborhoods of communities like De Pere, Allouez, and Green Bay where street trees were originally planted, the now mature trees are a significant amenity. Brown County should encourage local communities to require the planting of street trees for new subdivisions. In addition, the County should seek to preserve selected existing trees and woodlots by working with developers and the local communities to design around such features during the subdivision platting process.

 Utilize “green infrastructure” approaches for managing stormwater to improve stormwater quality and beautify our communities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency describes green infrastructure as “Using vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create healthier urban environments. At the scale of a city or county, green infrastructure refers to the patchwork of natural areas that provides habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water. At the scale of a neighborhood or site, green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic

47 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

nature by soaking up and storing water.”21 At the site or neighborhood level, typical green infrastructure techniques include using rain barrels or cisterns to store water, using permeable pavement, planting rain gardens, and using bioswales along streets.

 Alternative development approaches, such as conservation subdivisions, should continue to be encouraged near environmentally sensitive areas. New subdivisions could be designed to preserve natural drainage patterns, reduce fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and limit the amount of impervious surfaces, such as roads. By clustering development on a site, large blocks of environmentally sensitive areas could be left as preserved open space.

 Natural and cultural resources education should be encouraged. Spreading knowledge of the importance of the County’s natural and cultural resources and ways to maintain them are essential implementation tools. For example, educating property owners along the County’s numerous rivers and streams about nonpoint source pollution and providing tips on landscaping and buffering to prevent this pollution could help to achieve improved water quality. Periodic newsletters could be mailed to County residents to provide information on topics, such as not dumping pollutants down storm sewers, tree trimming, and other issues relating to natural resource protection. Water resource educational materials are available from the WDNR and the UW-Extension. Facilities, such as the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, Barkhausen Waterfowl Preserve, Neville Public Museum, and the Brown County Library system, and the programs they offer should also be promoted and encouraged.

Recommended Policies, Programs, and Actions

Many of the policies, programs, and actions identified in this chapter have been specifically formulated to also address recommendations within the Land Use and Community Facilities chapters of this plan. Not only is such an approach economical and efficient for the County, but such considerations are also required under Wisconsin’s Smart Growth Law. While not specifically addressed within this chapter, it is generally understood that the County should review its ordinances and administrative practices to ensure their compatibility with the policies, programs, and actions set forth in this plan. Examples of this would include provision of adequate staff to administer federal and state environmental programs, to assist the public, and to implement this chapter’s recommendations in an efficient and cost-effective manner as possible and consistent with the other recommendations of this plan, as well as with those plans of other local units of government.

Natural Resources Recommendations

 Support efforts to reduce phosphorus loadings in Brown County’s surface water features through such techniques as adaptive management, nutrient credit trading, and installation of vegetative buffers or other effective best management practices.

 Work with governmental agencies, nonprofit groups, agricultural producers, and utilities to attain the restoration goals in the Lower Fox River TMDL.

 Encourage local, nonprofit, and volunteer programs regarding natural resources restoration efforts.

 Showcase the Bay of Green Bay, Fox River, West Shore Wetlands, and Niagara Escarpment as the County’s premier natural resource features.

 Continue/expand efforts to restore west shore wetland pike spawning habitat.

 Periodically review and revise, when necessary, the County’s shoreland, floodplains, and wetlands

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm. Accessed 7/23/2014. 48 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

zoning ordinances to ensure consistency with state and federal requirements.

 Assist local units of government in their efforts to identify and protect significant natural resource features, such as wetlands, floodplains, and streams.

 Utilize green infrastructure approaches to managing stormwater for our County facilities, as applicable.

 Continue to monitor the water quality and fishery of Lily Lake.

 Review the Brown County Sewage Plan to ensure that it is consistent with the recommendations of this comprehensive plan, particularly as it applies to the environmentally sensitive area designations.

 Continue Brown County’s “time of sale” program of inspecting private onsite wastewater treatment systems.

 Encourage and support the efforts of local communities to participate in the Tree City USA program and urban forestry efforts.

 Contact the WDNR to determine the presence and location of any threatened, endangered, or special concern species to facilitate their protection and preservation when possible.

 Consider scenic resources in the identification and acquisition of parks, parkways, etc. and in the establishment of local conservation districts and conservation by design developments.

 Inventory karst features and identify feasible methods to protect these features from inappropriate development and agricultural runoff.

 Update the Brown County Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Plan consistent with the recommendations in this comprehensive plan.

Cultural Resources Recommendations

 Support efforts to identify historic sites, historic buildings, and archeological sites that are worthy of protection for future generations.

 Coordinate with the Wisconsin State Historical Society and the Neville Public Museum to identify and preserve archeological sites and artifacts.

 Promote the County’s unique features and attractions through educational efforts focused on its citizens, businesses, and tourists. Topics that should be addressed include its unique natural, cultural, recreational, and historical aspects.

 Support and encourage the arts, cultural, and educational programs and facilities within Brown County. Focus design and beautification efforts in urban areas, entrance corridors, and unincorporated communities for the improvement of neighborhoods, natural resources, and cultural resources. Specific actions should include:  Support local preservation and beautification efforts.  Street tree requirements.  Establish small neighborhood parks, areas of green space, plazas, etc. to serve as community gathering spaces.  Increase the involvement of civic and nonprofit organizations in the planning and designing of the County’s communities.  Support and encourage parkways, walkways, trails, etc. along major natural resource, recreation,

49 DRAFT Chapter 8: Natural and Cultural Resources 11/5/14

or pedestrian corridors. This would also include “green infrastructure” approaches.  Promote alternative development methods, including conservation subdivisions, traditional neighborhood designs, and mixed use developments.  Provide educational materials to the general public and others about the importance of natural and cultural resources.  Promote Brown County Library, NEW Zoo, Brown County Fair, Brown County Golf Course, and Parks Management programs to a wide audience.

50